So since it looks like the new administration is friendly to the idea of doing away with this could somebody remind me what exactly this might mean for we the humble users of the internet? I am but a Power Engineer and know little of the ways of networking.
It means don't cut your cord too soon. :lol: #PayToPlayInInternetTraffic
Companies can pay for faster speeds, so in essence companies that can't or won't pay the bribe... err fee, will be throttled down to slower speeds. In the end users suffer. There are other issues, but that's the main concern
QuoteMIT Technology Review
Business
What Happens If Net Neutrality Goes Away?
We'll likely see new business models and video streaming products from the big ISPs if Trump removes net neutrality rules, and upstart content providers could struggle to compete.
by Mike Orcutt
January 30, 2017
The "days are numbered" for the net neutrality rules enacted by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission under Barack Obama, at least if you take President Trump's newly appointed FCC chairman Ajit Pai's word for it. So what happens after they are gone?
Pai, an FCC commissioner since 2012, was a harsh critic of the agency's "Open Internet Order," which it passed in 2015 via a 3-2 party line vote. It bans Internet service providers from blocking or throttling legal content. It also prohibits them from engaging in business arrangements in which companies pay ISPs a premium to have their traffic prioritized, and gives the FCC the authority to police other practices it deems unfair or harmful to consumers on a case-by-case basis.
It's not that Pai disagrees with the general concept of "net neutrality," which is broadly a bipartisan issue. What Pai and other opponents of the Open Internet Order say they are most upset about is that it changed how the FCC classifies broadband from an "information service" to a "telecommunications service." That gave it the authority to impose strict, utility-style regulations on ISPs.
Though President Trump has said very little about his views on net neutrality, his nomination of Pai suggests he is on board with eliminating the regulations. In the meantime, his FCC could simply choose not to enforce the rules.
To get a sense of how things will be different, look no further than AT&T's new product called DirecTV Now, which lets users stream content from DirecTV (which AT&T owns) over the wireless network without it counting against their monthly data cap. The general practice of letting wireless users stream video for free is known in the industry as "zero rating." Under the Open Internet Order, the FCC has the authority to police zero-rated services on a case-by-case basis, and late last year the agency expressed "serious concerns" that AT&T was unfairly favoring its own content. Pai's FCC, on the other hand, will likely encourage such products.
We are also likely to see the emergence of so-called paid prioritization arrangements, in which companies pay to have their data prioritized. Many net neutrality proponents adamantly oppose this, viewing it as anti-competitive. One argument, made famous by the comedian John Oliver, is that whereas a big player like Netflix can afford to pay for an Internet "fast lane," a startup streaming video company may not be able to compete.
There are plenty of potential paid prioritization arrangements that would not harm consumers and would actually be good for competition, argues Hal Singer, an economist and a senior fellow at the George Washington University Institute of Public Policy who has been critical of the FCC's outright ban on the practice. Consider a telemedicine provider that is willing to pay to make sure its ISP prioritizes its data. As long as the ISP is willing to offer the same deal to any other provider, that is fair, he says.
That's not to say startups and smaller companies don't need protections against discriminatory practices, though, says Singer, who worries that the Trump administration might go too far in weakening the FCC's regulatory power. Members of the transition team have advocated for removing all of the agency's authority to police unfair business practices by the ISPs and put that in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission. Singer and others are concerned that without a new mandate from Congress the FTC does not have enough authority to protect independent content providers adequately.
Quote from: Valmy on January 30, 2017, 09:50:42 PM
So since it looks like the new administration is friendly to the idea of doing away with this could somebody remind me what exactly this might mean for we the humble users of the internet? I am but a Power Engineer and know little of the ways of networking.
In the short time, your speed could be throttled while you watch Netflix. In the long term, prices will increase and consumer choices in streaming services will likely go down.
Netflix would have to pay a fee to all ISPs so that they don't get throttled down. Upstart companies looking to launch their own streaming service will face a huge barrier to enter the market. Some big companies offering internet services, cable and streaming might favour their own services instead of another by intentionally slowing down everyone else.
Bottom line: everything will cost more and there will be less competition.
eventually It'll be like a Cable sub with different packages containing more data/speed/no limit towards targeted websites.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 31, 2017, 09:21:48 AM
eventually It'll be like a Cable sub with different packages containing more data/speed/no limit towards targeted websites.
But everybody hates cable and their funding model.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 09:24:13 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 31, 2017, 09:21:48 AM
eventually It'll be like a Cable sub with different packages containing more data/speed/no limit towards targeted websites.
But everybody hates cable and their funding model.
not the Cables co.
A service like Netflix, Spotify or Youtube could only develop in an environment of net neutrality... small market entrant that uses up big amounts of bandwidth. Probably also something like WoW.
Same for ubiquitous online porn for that matter.
Will it be like the olden times when you first downloaded your podcasts and videos before you could watch or listen to them?
Surely it will not be that slow.
Of course not. Provided that you download your podcasts and videos from Comcast's video-on-demand portal. :P
I believe IPs will try to pass the cost onto the companies, which will have to eat it or pass it to their customers. Don't think it will affect user-experience much besides price. But it will reduce competition because of increased costs for bandwith-hungry services.
Another measure in the name of "economic growth" that will make everybody poorer, except Comcast.
When you say increased price you mean it will just mean I will pay more for my Internet service but beyond that nothing will change? At least on my end? But it will also reduce the amount of new content available?
Why do Siege and company support this?
That would allow Comcast etc. to sell internet packages like they now sell cable channel packages. Book the Comcast streaming package and they'll let through Netflix and Spotify, book the game channel and they'll give you a good latency for online gaming etc.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
When you say increased price you mean it will just mean I will pay more for my Internet service but beyond that nothing will change? At least on my end? But it will also reduce the amount of new content available?
Why do Siege and company support this?
No, I believe you'll pay more for Netflix, etc... as ISPs are allowed to charge them for bandwith privileges.
Zanza says the opposite, but we'll see how the market swings when this comes down. Thing is that this gives ISPs more power in the equation, when they arguably create very little value (it's just a pipe).
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
But it will also reduce the amount of new content available?
Of course. It will change the balance between the content providers and the internet service providers in favor of the latter. So the ISPs will get a bigger share of the total revenue, which in turn means that the content providers get less and thus have less budget to produce new content.
It also limits the possibilities of start ups to offer a competitive new service as they cannot pay Comcast or so to let their traffic through the fast lane.
Quote from: celedhring on January 31, 2017, 01:13:14 PM
Zanza says the opposite, but we'll see how the market swings when this comes down.
Same thing really. Either you pay the same for worse service or pay more for same service.
Quote from: celedhring on January 31, 2017, 01:07:58 PM
I believe IPs will try to pass the cost onto the companies, which will have to eat it or pass it to their customers. Don't think it will affect user-experience much besides price. But it will reduce competition because of increased costs for bandwith-hungry services.
I'm sure there'll be services that will buy bulk bandwidth and then offer portions to small upstarts. But yeah, still drives up final cost, and I doubt it will go into any improvement of services.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
Why do Siege and company support this?
Because Siege and company are morons who don't understand most of the issues on which they vote beyond "they're Republicans" ?
It's fairly easy to draw a parallel with the development of the phone network.
The US forced AT&T to split and provided grounds to insure free market competiton for a while.
Canada maintained regional monopolies well into the 90s and only gradually allowed competition to enter various fields.
The US had a faster technological development than Canada and you still (for now) pay less for telecoms (cell phones, local phones, maybe not long distance calls, internet) than us. Internet and cell coverage is still very spotty. I still can't get any decent cell signal in my office and outside around the buildings. Driving 200m and I hit a total dead zone, no signal at all for 200 more meters. Some of my employees don't have access to high speed internet, event though they are only a few km away from me. Some places were we work have no high speed internet and no cell phone coverage at all. I'm only 150km away from Quebec city. I don't expect full coverage in the middle of the artic, but still, I wouldn't call where I live "remote". Well, not that remote.
Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2017, 02:55:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 01:11:28 PM
Why do Siege and company support this?
Because Siege and company are morons who don't understand most of the issues on which they vote beyond "they're Republicans" ?
He said something like it was political propaganda or something that made no sense, so probably true as far as he is concerned. Like net neutrality meant Hillary got as much internet as Trump or something.
But the people who have been eager to dismantle this thing are surely motivated by more than just a few more bucks to Comcast at consumer's expense.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2017, 03:00:12 PM
But the people who have been eager to dismantle this thing are surely motivated by more than just a few more bucks to Comcast at consumer's expense.
Comcast& others have invested fucktons of money into lobbying the Republicans to fight net neutrality.
Even in the theoritically liberal Sillicion valley, tech entrepreneurs gave more money to Republican congresspeople than Democrats.
The big telecoms have invested lots of money into their network, and if given the choice, they'd rather milk their consumers for higher profit margins than face competition.
I don't think AT&T was all that eager to face competition for land phone lines back in the 70s-80s.
I can't find my links, but I thought I posted about it here, in the computer sections, maybe. There was an interesting interview with the former FCC head about the subject.
Now the customer's got the ISP as a partner. Any problems, he goes to the ISP. Trouble with the bill? He can go to the ISP. Trouble with the connection, the cable box, the DVR, he can call the ISP. But now the guy's gotta come up with the ISP's money every month, no matter what. Buffering bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had bad streaming? Fuck you, pay me. Couldn't download the content without timing out, huh? Fuck you, pay me.
But emails tho
Emails
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2017, 05:28:35 PM
Now the customer's got the ISP as a partner. Any problems, he goes to the ISP. Trouble with the bill? He can go to the ISP. Trouble with the connection, the cable box, the DVR, he can call the ISP. But now the guy's gotta come up with the ISP's money every month, no matter what. Buffering bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had bad streaming? Fuck you, pay me. Couldn't download the content without timing out, huh? Fuck you, pay me.
What? If they had all of a customer's business then they would be totally inspired to make sure that customer had the best experience because...reasons.
so, are long term projections within or outside 4-8 years?
Nobody knows exactly what will happen but I'm reasonably sure this is accurate:
Quote from: Zanza on January 31, 2017, 01:14:47 PM
It will change the balance between the content providers and the internet service providers in favor of the latter. So the ISPs will get a bigger share of the total revenue
Beyond that, how it will impact consumers I don't know. My guess is that it the impact it has on what a customer pays for internet service depends on whether or not it leads to there being fewer ISPs available to that customer. And I have even less idea what impact it will have internet speed. I don't really see any way that ending internet neutrality will help the consumer, but I'm not sure that the average consumer will see any real negative change, either.
I think some of the big content providers will get squeezed pretty bad (Netflix, Hulu), but I'm mainly worried about the little guys. I'm assuming little providers and hosting companies won't be able to afford top tier rates, and so will probably be priced out of anything other than serving up simple web pages.
Quote from: dps on January 31, 2017, 07:35:02 PM
Nobody knows exactly what will happen but I'm reasonably sure this is accurate:
Quote from: Zanza on January 31, 2017, 01:14:47 PM
It will change the balance between the content providers and the internet service providers in favor of the latter. So the ISPs will get a bigger share of the total revenue
Beyond that, how it will impact consumers I don't know. My guess is that it the impact it has on what a customer pays for internet service depends on whether or not it leads to there being fewer ISPs available to that customer. And I have even less idea what impact it will have internet speed. I don't really see any way that ending internet neutrality will help the consumer, but I'm not sure that the average consumer will see any real negative change, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling
You want speed for your content, you're going to pay for speed. You don't want to pay for premium speed, enjoy your tiling and buffering icon.
Now that, I'm reasonably sure is accurate.
It won't only be speed, it will also be access to entire genre of websites.
Want to access Languish? That's a forum with no deal with us, 5$/month.
This place is half dead anyways. Good riddance.
You can afford the price of a clips4sale video, you can afford Languish.
I don't see the value.
Sounds like some posters need to be downsized.
QuoteNew York Times
Technology
Trump's F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules
By CECILIA KANG
FEB. 5, 2017
WASHINGTON — In his first days as President Trump's pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai has aggressively moved to roll back consumer protection regulations created during the Obama presidency.
Mr. Pai took a first swipe at net neutrality rules designed to ensure equal access to content on the internet. He stopped nine companies from providing discounted high-speed internet service to low-income individuals. He withdrew an effort to keep prison phone rates down, and he scrapped a proposal to break open the cable box market.
In total, as the chairman of the F.C.C., Mr. Pai released about a dozen actions in the last week, many buried in the agency's website and not publicly announced, stunning consumer advocacy groups and telecom analysts. They said Mr. Pai's message was clear: The F.C.C., an independent agency, will mirror the Trump administration's rapid unwinding of government regulations that businesses fought against during the Obama administration.
"With these strong-arm tactics, Chairman Pai is showing his true stripes," said Matt Wood, the policy director at the consumer group Free Press.
"The public wants an F.C.C. that helps people," he added. "Instead, it got one that does favors for the powerful corporations that its chairman used to work for."
Mr. Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon, was elevated by Mr. Trump to the position of chairman after serving as a minority Republican member for the past three years. Known for being a stickler on conservative interpretations of telecommunications law and the limits of the F.C.C.'s authority, Mr. Pai said he was trying to wipe the slate clean.
He noted that his predecessor, Tom Wheeler, had rammed through a series of actions right after the presidential election. Many of those efforts, Mr. Pai argued, went beyond the agency's legal authority.
"These last-minute actions, which did not enjoy the support of the majority of commissioners at the time they were taken, should not bind us going forward," Mr. Pai said in a statement released Friday. "Accordingly, they are being revoked."
The efforts portend great changes at the federal agency at the center of the convergence of media, telecommunications and the internet. The biggest target will be net neutrality, a rule created in 2015 that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against internet traffic. The rule, which was created alongside a decision to categorize broadband like a utility, was the tech centerpiece of the Obama administration.
On Friday, the F.C.C. took its first steps to pull back those rules, analysts said. Mr. Pai closed an investigation into zero-rating practices of the wireless providers T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. Zero-rating is the offering of free streaming and other downloads that do not count against limits on the amount of data a consumer can download.
If a provider like AT&T offers free streaming of its DirecTV programs, does that violate net neutrality rules because it could put competing video services at a disadvantage? Under its previous leadership, the F.C.C. said in a report that it saw some evidence that made it concerned. But Mr. Pai said after closing the investigations into wireless carriers that zero-rating was popular among consumers, particularly low-income households.
"The speed of the ruling and the chairman's tone are very encouraging for internet service providers," said Paul Gallant, an analyst at Cowen. "I think it's a down payment on net neutrality, with much more to follow."
Last week, Mr. Pai said he disagreed with the move two years ago to declare broadband a utility. The reclassification of broadband into a service akin to telephones and electricity provided the legal foundation for net neutrality rules.
Mr. Pai said he had not decided how he would approach the overhaul of broadband classification and net neutrality rules, but he faces legal hurdles. A federal court upheld the rules last year, and the commission could end up in a lengthy legal battle if he tries to scrap the rules.
Mr. Pai will have the help of powerful members of Congress who have promised to attack the classification of broadband as a utility-like service. And he is popular among Republican leaders, including the Senate's majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who with other members viewed Mr. Pai as a loyal voice of dissent during the Obama years. Mr. Pai, 44, the child of immigrants from India who settled in Kansas, is a fresh face for the Republican Party.
Congress could introduce legislation that limits the agency's ability to regulate broadband providers and enforce net neutrality rules. Also under attack are privacy rules for broadband providers.
"The agency has strayed from its core mission," said Marsha Blackburn, a Republican representative from Tennessee who oversees a telecommunications and tech subcommittee. She has called for a hearing within two weeks on the F.C.C. agenda under the new administration.
Democrats in Congress said they would fight legislation that waters down net neutrality rules. They said Mr. Pai, described as a straight-A student of telecom law, would be a tough adversary, and they face great opposition from Republicans who have promised to prioritize the overturning of net neutrality rules.
"The key here is that it's already been tested in the courts and the court upheld this," said Representative Anna G. Eshoo, Democrat of California. "Ajit Pai is intelligent and genial, but he is not on the side of consumers and the public interest."
Most troubling to consumer advocates was the secrecy around Mr. Pai's early actions. That included a decision to rescind the permissions of nine broadband providers to participate in a federal subsidy plan for low-income consumers. None of the providers currently serve low-income consumers, but Mr. Pai's comments could foreshadow a shake-up of the Lifeline low-income subsidy program.
On Monday, the F.C.C. is scheduled to appear before a federal judge to defend its push to curb extraordinarily expensive phone call prices from prison. But it told a judge a few days ago that Mr. Pai disagreed with many aspects of the case.
Mignon Clyburn, the sole Democrat of the three sitting members of the F.C.C., warned that the actions would directly harm consumers. "Rather than working to close the digital divide, this action widens the gap," Ms. Clyburn said.
It's not totally clear how a non-neutral world would play out. Also some of the bad scenarios people speculate about could run afoul of antitrust. That is, assuming there was someone around to enforce antitrust law.
I am waiting for our Trump supporters to tell is how this is great, and what they wanted all along.
QuoteThe biggest target will be net neutrality, a rule created in 2015 that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against internet traffic. The rule, which was created alongside a decision to categorize broadband like a utility, was the tech centerpiece of the Obama administration.
Wait I thought neutrality was the default state, introduced long ago in the internet days of yore when Al Gore still strode through the halls of power like a hybrid colossus.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2017, 10:10:05 AM
QuoteThe biggest target will be net neutrality, a rule created in 2015 that prevents internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against internet traffic. The rule, which was created alongside a decision to categorize broadband like a utility, was the tech centerpiece of the Obama administration.
Wait I thought neutrality was the default state, introduced long ago in the internet days of yore when Al Gore still strode through the halls of power like a hybrid colossus.
The new "fact" is that net neutrality is Obamacare.
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2017, 10:00:27 AM
I am waiting for our Trump supporters to tell is how this is great, and what they wanted all along.
I love how these kinds of analog choices force the question: are you pro-business or pro-consumer? Because the repercussions of eliminating net neutrality leaves absolutely no wiggle room.
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it. highlight and Backspace this and other regulations unless evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that doing so will damn the consumer!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2017, 10:18:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2017, 10:00:27 AM
I am waiting for our Trump supporters to tell is how this is great, and what they wanted all along.
I love how these kinds of analog choices force the question: are you pro-business or pro-consumer? Because the repercussions of eliminating net neutrality leaves absolutely no wiggle room.
Which is dumb, because there are plenty of businesses (particularly small businesses) that could get screwed hard by losing net neutrality.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it. highlight and Backspace this and other regulations unless evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that doing so will damn the consumer!
Right on cue....
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it
In this scenario, where do the extra earnings of the corporations come from?
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it. highlight and Backspace this and other regulations unless evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that doing so will damn the consumer!
Well there are also content creators. I don't really use many corporate products on the internet personally.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it. highlight and Backspace this and other regulations unless evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that doing so will damn the consumer!
Losing Net Neutrality means losing the Internet & just getting another Cable network.
The most profitable and innovative part of the US economy seems to be the Silicon Valley with its cloud services, be it Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft Azure etc. Those rely on net neutrality because they can only offer their services to private and business customers easily thanks to the open internet. And as the US market is the most profitable and most relevant in the world, it will hurt their future innovativeness if they have limitations there. I guess Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu will like it though...
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2017, 01:43:56 PM
The most profitable and innovative part of the US economy seems to be the Silicon Valley with its cloud services, be it Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft Azure etc. Those rely on net neutrality because they can only offer their services to private and business customers easily thanks to the open internet. And as the US market is the most profitable and most relevant in the world, it will hurt their future innovativeness if they have limitations there. I guess Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu will like it though...
The big companies will be able to cut deals, and it might hurt the bottom line a bit but likely will still do fine. The pure bandwidth hogs like Netflix will probably get hammered. The little companies that the big ones like to buy when they get successful will have a much harder time getting started though.
It's also possible that the big internet companies will start diversifying vertically, to buy up internet providers to gain control of the lines for their own advantage.
Quote from: frunk on February 06, 2017, 01:50:32 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2017, 01:43:56 PM
The most profitable and innovative part of the US economy seems to be the Silicon Valley with its cloud services, be it Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft Azure etc. Those rely on net neutrality because they can only offer their services to private and business customers easily thanks to the open internet. And as the US market is the most profitable and most relevant in the world, it will hurt their future innovativeness if they have limitations there. I guess Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu will like it though...
The big companies will be able to cut deals, and it might hurt the bottom line a bit but likely will still do fine. The pure bandwidth hogs like Netflix will probably get hammered. The little companies that the big ones like to buy when they get successful will have a much harder time getting started though.
It's also possible that the big internet companies will start diversifying vertically, to buy up internet providers to gain control of the lines for their own advantage.
Yes, of course. That's what I really meant. The innovativeness of the Silicon Valley is that it jump starts small startups that can grow very big fast due to the openess of the internet. If they cannot reach their potential customers anymore, you'll not have success stories like Netflix anymore. You would instead have some kind of Comcast video-on-demand service...
Netflix wouldn't be hurt so much. They are not centralized anymore(if they ever were). Got server boxes closer & closer to the local loop nowadays.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2017, 02:02:51 PM
Netflix wouldn't be hurt so much. They are not centralized anymore(if they ever were). Got server boxes closer & closer to the local loop nowadays.
It would be the ISPs that would determine their net speeds. It would be Netflix customers that take the hit: once for paying for premium "access speed", and again for the higher subscription rates Netflix would charge in order to mitigate the increased fees the ISPs would charge them for the luxury of using their pipes.
If providers could pay more for faster speed, could they also pay less for slower?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
If providers could pay more for faster speed, could they also pay less for slower?
It is possible. Netflix could pay Comcast so that they get better speed and Amazon Prime gets slower speed.
Once you remove the net neutrality rule, anything is possible, really.
Will it happen? Doubtful. Could it? Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2017, 03:06:30 PM
If providers could pay more for faster speed, could they also pay less for slower?
Not really. The chokepoint is the last mile to the private customer. Netflix pays its internet service provider for the network connections to their network or maybe directly to the big internet exchange points. But from thereon its the open internet or the network of the internet service provider of the consumer of Netflix' service.
ISPs will bitch about the amount of bandwidth Netflix will suck up delivering to its customer base, and they will bill Netflix accordingly.
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2017, 01:43:56 PM
The most profitable and innovative part of the US economy seems to be the Silicon Valley with its cloud services, be it Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft Azure etc. Those rely on net neutrality because they can only offer their services to private and business customers easily thanks to the open internet. And as the US market is the most profitable and most relevant in the world, it will hurt their future innovativeness if they have limitations there. I guess Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu will like it though...
All of those companies will be fine - they have the financial resources, and marketing and political clout, to make sure they won't be unduly penalized.
The issue when it comes to net neutrality is whether the next generation of internet-based startups will be able to grow and thrive the way that FB, Netflix and the like have...
Quote from: Barrister on February 06, 2017, 05:29:07 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2017, 01:43:56 PM
The most profitable and innovative part of the US economy seems to be the Silicon Valley with its cloud services, be it Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft Azure etc. Those rely on net neutrality because they can only offer their services to private and business customers easily thanks to the open internet. And as the US market is the most profitable and most relevant in the world, it will hurt their future innovativeness if they have limitations there. I guess Tencent, Alibaba and Baidu will like it though...
All of those companies will be fine - they have the financial resources, and marketing and political clout, to make sure they won't be unduly penalized.
The issue when it comes to net neutrality is whether the next generation of internet-based startups will be able to grow and thrive the way that FB, Netflix and the like have...
Which was what he said in his follow-up post. Read the fucking thread, people. :rolleyes:
seems like a maybe, and if things get too bad then they can just add net neutrality back
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2017, 10:23:52 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
if the consumer is unlikely to be affected and corporations will earn more, then let's kill it. highlight and Backspace this and other regulations unless evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that doing so will damn the consumer!
Right on cue....
Yeah.
Though I'm not entirely in disagreement with him--I'd say scrap the rules if it customers won't get hurt. But it's very unclear that customers won't get hurt. While I
think Seedy is wrong and customers won't see big price increases, I'm not convinced that Seedy's wrong, either. I don't really want to take the chance.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2017, 10:10:35 PM
While I think Seedy is wrong and customers won't see big price increases, I'm not convinced that Seedy's wrong, either. I don't really want to take the chance.
See, this is why, 2 years from now, I will take this exact fucking post and wear. Your. Ass. Out.
Fucking dumbasses could have WE WILL MAKE MOAR MONEY AT YOUR EXPENSE stapled to your fucking foreheads by the cable companies, and you'd still gaze at your fucking navel, and wonder if they really mean it.
The fuck country do you think you live in, man? Have you not been following the cable industry the last 10 years? Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Adrift in an ocean of Assburgers.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2017, 10:10:35 PM
While I think Seedy is wrong and customers won't see big price increases, I'm not convinced that Seedy's wrong, either. I don't really want to take the chance.
See, this is why, 2 years from now, I will take this exact fucking post and wear. Your. Ass. Out.
Fucking dumbasses could have WE WILL MAKE MOAR MONEY AT YOUR EXPENSE stapled to your fucking foreheads by the cable companies, and you'd still gaze at your fucking navel, and wonder if they really mean it.
The fuck country do you think you live in, man? Have you not been following the cable industry the last 10 years? Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Adrift in an ocean of Assburgers.
Well they could just add net neutrality back in
I think we should try out LaCrock's idea: if something cannot be demonstrated to be in the consumer's favor, get rid of it. Patents would be the first to go, followed by copyright. The consumer could afford to pay more for internet if the price of prescription drugs goes down by 90%.
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2017, 10:27:14 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2017, 10:25:57 PM
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2017, 10:10:35 PM
While I think Seedy is wrong and customers won't see big price increases, I'm not convinced that Seedy's wrong, either. I don't really want to take the chance.
See, this is why, 2 years from now, I will take this exact fucking post and wear. Your. Ass. Out.
Fucking dumbasses could have WE WILL MAKE MOAR MONEY AT YOUR EXPENSE stapled to your fucking foreheads by the cable companies, and you'd still gaze at your fucking navel, and wonder if they really mean it.
The fuck country do you think you live in, man? Have you not been following the cable industry the last 10 years? Jesus tittyfucking Christ. Adrift in an ocean of Assburgers.
Well they could just add net neutrality back in
:lol:
Quote from: sbr on February 06, 2017, 10:27:14 PM
Well they could just add net neutrality back in
Now you're just trying to induce an aneurysm.
obama put it in and out like three times, but I guess if he does it it's ok
Quote from: LaCroix on February 06, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
obama put it in and out like three times, but I guess if he does it it's ok
He put what in and out three times? #thatswhatshesaid
Everything I can see shows that he has been pretty consistently for NN
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/510/support-network-neutrality-on-the-internet/
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html?_r=0http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/court-upholds-obama-backed-net-neutrality-rules-224309
Reshunned
(https://media.tenor.co/images/1fa9b4d8805163043a00145ac0944038/raw)
Never got the argument "Obama did it too". I thought the Trump voters saw Obama as the worst president in recent times. Why emulate him then?
as the saying goes, a broken clock can be right every now and then
Quote from: Zanza on February 07, 2017, 12:56:58 AM
Never got the argument "Obama did it too". I thought the Trump voters saw Obama as the worst president in recent times. Why emulate him then?
Because, of course, it is really just a rhetorical maneuver to attack people who disagree with Trump's policies. There's no thinking put into the way in which it puts Trump's actions on the same level and thus no cognitive dissonance on those making the argument between disliking when Obama did something 'similar' and what Trump has done.
lol yes because when trump does it it's bad right i forgot
Obama did not take out Net Neutrality at any point.
yeah, looked it up and it was bush. misremembered. so, it's been done before
Obama admin always favored NN.
You can almost see, post by post, LaCroix becoming as intellectually dishonest as his hero. He's still got a ways to go, as he acknowledges it about 10% of the time when his lies are shown to be lies, but I'm sure he's working to eliminate that last bit of impulse towards honesty. :lol:
Maybe we should consider that Lacroix IS Trump?
I don't think we should consider him at all. He stopped being amusing a few days ago.
Isn't Lacroix the old Count?
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2017, 01:47:08 PM
Isn't Lacroix the old Count?
The dude that wanted Russ Feingold for president? :huh:
Quote from: derspiess on February 07, 2017, 01:47:08 PM
Isn't Lacroix the old Count?
No. Count was from New England. Lacroix is from North Dakota.
Plus Count was a lefty, and Lacroix a Branch Trumpidian.
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2017, 12:49:45 PM
I don't think we should consider him at all. He stopped being amusing a few days ago.
Too generous.
Quote from: Zanza on February 06, 2017, 04:55:36 PM
Not really. The chokepoint is the last mile to the private customer. Netflix pays its internet service provider for the network connections to their network or maybe directly to the big internet exchange points. But from thereon its the open internet or the network of the internet service provider of the consumer of Netflix' service.
Except that for residential networks, usually only the first and last couple of hops are on the "open Internet" and not crossing ISP backbones. And you're not factoring in bloat/extended wait from deprioritized traffic.
A 1080p stream is on average 8 Mbps, so if it crosses 10 hops with an average ping of 20 ms each, the total ping is going to be 200 ms. Just to buffer enough to account for a dropped frame in the latency, that's an additional 1.6 Mb that's going to have to be downloaded before playback begins. So let's say one of those hops decides to deprioritize Netflix traffic in a spot where it doesn't really have an efficient alternative, and lowers the response to 100 ms.
That one hop now jacks the total ping up almost 50% to 280 ms. Now, we need 2.24 Mb just to counter for latency, and that's a perfect route with no dropped packets. If 5% of the packets are dropped, we're going to have to up the speed to allow retries- bringing the minimum speed up to 8.4 Mbps and making it unreliable until 1/3 of a second has gone by.
And this is for 1080p video. For anything offering 4k, the baseline numbers go from 25 to 26.25 Mbps, 7 Mb downloaded bare minimum at 280 ms ping, and from 7 to 7.35 Mb downloaded as a safe buffer, which is coincidentally just enough to make a Comcast customer go from safe with a 25 Mbps 2nd-tier service to unreliable and needing to bump up (for additional money) to their 3rd-tier 100 Mbps service. All by throttling one router.
Quote from: grumbler on February 07, 2017, 12:40:42 PM
You can almost see, post by post, LaCroix becoming as intellectually dishonest as his hero. He's still got a ways to go, as he acknowledges it about 10% of the time when his lies are shown to be lies, but I'm sure he's working to eliminate that last bit of impulse towards honesty. :lol:
nah, I did misremember. I remembered seeing a bunch of flip flopping with net neutrality and thought obama had done it
Did all the horrible things y'all mentioned come to pass when Bush unneutralized the net?
it's more important to discuss (1) how obama didn't get rid of net neutrality; (2) how I'm a liar; and (3) whether I'm one of many white dudes (because all white men look alike I guess?)
For your reading pleasure, Yi, I present the saga of Netflix, Level 3 Communications, and Comcast:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112907024.html
TL;DR- Comcast was charging fees to Level 3, Level 3 said it was charging extra for switching video traffic coming from Netflix, Comcast swore up and down it charged every CDN (content delivery network) the same fees.
without reading the link, were those all the companies that did maybe bad things?
It seems like the Internet has changed a lot in the last ten years, so I'm not sure how valuable comparisons to the Bush era are going to be. How much streaming was there in 2007?
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 07, 2017, 04:12:57 PM
It seems like the Internet has changed a lot in the last ten years, so I'm not sure how valuable comparisons to the Bush era are going to be. How much streaming was there in 2007?
The big fight then was over whether Comcast could throttle BitTorrent by sending fake reset packets.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2017, 04:12:39 PM
without reading the link, were those all the companies that did maybe bad things?
The accusation was that Comcast was charging to route video traffic that competed with its Xfinity content. Level 3 was complaining that they were getting unfairly whacked with fees because they handled Netflix traffic.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 07, 2017, 04:11:06 PM
For your reading pleasure, Yi, I present the saga of Netflix, Level 3 Communications, and Comcast:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112907024.html
TL;DR- Comcast was charging fees to Level 3, Level 3 said it was charging extra for switching video traffic coming from Netflix, Comcast swore up and down it charged every CDN (content delivery network) the same fees.
Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality. I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2017, 04:37:31 PM
Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality. I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.
At the time there was concern over the issue, but other than Comcast trying to kill BitTorrent there wasn't much action. Part of that was because although there was still internet activity (and plenty of downloads) there was little realtime or streaming going on. Now that there are many more companies that rely on net neutrality for their business it's easier to find reasons to make them pay.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2017, 04:37:31 PM
Doesn't really seem on point, since AFAICT that happened during a time when the policy was net neutrality. I'm asking about what happened when that was not the policy.
It was a long-festering issue that ended up blowing up as the poster child once NN was established as an avenue to attack the policy. Before that, it was pretty opaque, since NN mostly affects vendor contracts to which end users are not privy.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2017, 04:10:43 PM
it's more important to discuss (1) how obama didn't get rid of net neutrality; (2) how I'm a liar; and (3) whether I'm one of many white dudes (because all white men look alike I guess?)
This is an amazing display of despicable behavoir.
1. The asshole trolls us all as terrible hypocrits because of something he oh-so-conveniently "mis-remembered". If he had shown any kind of integrity I suppose I might buy it but these kinds of "errors" are incredibly common on his part. Then he trolls us for discussing the very concept he introduced.
2. Acts like we are all singling him out as being a liar despite the fact he lies all the time and did so again.
3. Weirdly calls Spicey a racist for confusing him with another poster.
The guy has no integrity nor take any responsibility for his statements. It is a complete waste of space. he can stay banned forever as far as I am concerned.
Can we get a pro-Trump poster who actually honestly wants to discuss issues and is not just a two-faced troll asshole? That would be great. Of course I guess I shouldn't tarnish pro-Trump people with LaCroix idiocy and two-facedness. He voted for Hillary. My apologies to Trump supporters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2017, 04:06:19 PM
Did all the horrible things y'all mentioned come to pass when Bush unneutralized the net?
Good question. Obviously Bush neutralized it again later so obviously he had a reason to do it? What might that be?
Quote from: Valmy on February 07, 2017, 11:12:23 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on February 07, 2017, 04:10:43 PM
it's more important to discuss (1) how obama didn't get rid of net neutrality; (2) how I'm a liar; and (3) whether I'm one of many white dudes (because all white men look alike I guess?)
This is an amazing display of despicable behavoir.
1. The asshole trolls us all as terrible hypocrits because of something he oh-so-conveniently "mis-remembered". If he had shown any kind of integrity I suppose I might buy it but these kinds of "errors" are incredibly common on his part. Then he trolls us for discussing the very concept he introduced.
2. Acts like we are all singling him out as being a liar despite the fact he lies all the time and did so again.
3. Weirdly calls Spicey a racist for confusing him with another poster.
The guy has no integrity nor take any responsibility for his statements. It is a complete waste of space. he can stay banned forever as far as I am concerned.
Can we get a pro-Trump poster who actually honestly wants to discuss issues and is not just a two-faced troll asshole? That would be great. Of course I guess I shouldn't tarnish pro-Trump people with LaCroix idiocy and two-facedness. He voted for Hillary. My apologies to Trump supporters.
He's fake.
He's the cheap Chinese copy of Kellyanne Conway.
Quote from: 11B4V on February 07, 2017, 11:27:13 PM
He's the cheap Chinese copy of Kellyanne Conway.
:pinch:
http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-commissioner-says-fast-broadband-is-a-novelty/
QuoteFCC Commissioner says fast broadband is a novelty
Don't expect the FCC to push for faster broadband service in residential homes.
For the most part, 1Gbps Internet service is a pipe dream for any U.S. resident who doesn't live in a major metropolitan area. If you were hoping that might change at the urging of a new FCC commissioner, don't hold your breath. FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly hasn't been one to push for faster broadband, and he's certainly not a champion of expanding 1Gbps to more areas. Instead, he views ultra-fast broadband as a "novelty" for consumers who already have access.
"The outcry for things like ultra high-speed service in certain areas means longer waits for those who have no access or still rely on dial-up service, as providers rush to serve the denser and more profitable areas that seek upgrades to this level," O'Rielly said, according to Fierce Telecom. "Today, ultra-fast residential service is a novelty and good for marketing, but the tiny percentage of people using it cannot drive our policy decisions."
O'Rielly is assuming that expanding ultra-fast broadband and striving for ubiquitous broadband coverage can't occur at the same time. Some may agree with him, but what's concerning is that he doesn't seem to place any kind of urgency on faster connections. As TechDirt points out, when the FCC proposed increasing the standard definition of broadband from 4Mbps up and 1Mbps down to 25Mbps up and 3Mbps down, he voted against it.
"To justify setting the new benchmark at 25/3, as opposed to the current 4/1 or even 10/1 as several commenters suggested, the report notes that 4K TV requires 25Mbps. But 4K TV is still relatively new and is not expected to be widely adopted for years to come," O'Rielly wrote in his dissent (PDF). "While the statute directs us to look at 'advanced' telecommunications capability, this stretches the concept to an untenable extreme. Some people, for example, believe, probably incorrectly, that we are on the path to interplanetary teleportation. Should we include the estimated bandwidth for that as well?"
Yes, O'Rielly put the need for faster broadband to support 4K streaming on the same level what would be required for interplanetary teleportation. Both are an "untenable extreme" in his eyes.
What brought all this into view is a $20 billion proposal by a group of Democrats to expand "high speed and affordable broadband" in underserved areas. It was proposed as an alternative to U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure initiative.
"While sound telecom policy provisions that promote infrastructure build out could make sense, I would argue that policymakers should be leery of new communications infrastructure spending, as the last thing consumers or businesses need is an encore of the market distortions caused by the last Federal government economic stimulus efforts," O'Rielly said. "For the sake of efficiency and soundness, if new government money has to be included for broadband, it should be done in a way that does not harm competition in the marketplace, prevents bureaucrats from picking winners and losers, is technology agnostic, distributes resources in an effective and efficient manner, and does not undermine the FCC's universal service high-cost program."
According to Akamai (PDF), the average Internet speed in the U.S. is 16.3Mbps.
if he's defining ultra-fast residential service as "1gbps," then I agree. that is a novelty 99.99% residential consumers won't need
until we do.
1gbps won't be needed for residential consumers for at least a decade. my (sole) local provider offers up to 200mbps, and that's far more than necessary
Quote from: LaCroix on February 17, 2017, 08:58:55 AM
1gbps won't be needed for residential consumers for at least a decade. my (sole) local provider offers up to 200mbps, and that's far more than necessary
stupid forecast. That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future. "640kb is all we'll ever need".
If you need it in a decade, you have to start implementing it now. Otherwise in a decade, you'll have 56kbps speed in the countryside and 10gbs in the city.
Plan ahead, for once.
4k tvs are being sold right now. They are the majority of the HD tv sales. By next year, 1080p will be the very low ed models. 4k content is available on streaming, from Netflix and other providers. It's already hard to stream 1080p content, I often have to wait 20 minutes or more before I start watching a movie. If I were to require 4k content with HDR, I'd have to start the movie a day before.
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2017, 09:18:08 AM
stupid forecast. That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future. "640kb is all we'll ever need".
If you need it in a decade, you have to start implementing it now. Otherwise in a decade, you'll have 56kbps speed in the countryside and 10gbs in the city.
Plan ahead, for once.
The issue raised in the article is not whether to implement it, but whether to publicly subsidize it in certain "underserved" communities.
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2017, 09:18:08 AMIt's already hard to stream 1080p content, I often have to wait 20 minutes or more before I start watching a movie.
What kind of connection are you on?
He's on Yi's dial-up IIRC.
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2017, 09:18:08 AMstupid forecast. That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future. "640kb is all we'll ever need".
If you need it in a decade, you have to start implementing it now. Otherwise in a decade, you'll have 56kbps speed in the countryside and 10gbs in the city.
Plan ahead, for once.
4k tvs are being sold right now. They are the majority of the HD tv sales. By next year, 1080p will be the very low ed models. 4k content is available on streaming, from Netflix and other providers. It's already hard to stream 1080p content, I often have to wait 20 minutes or more before I start watching a movie. If I were to require 4k content with HDR, I'd have to start the movie a day before.
the countryside won't have 56kbps speed
people don't need to buy 4k. though, I suspect internet speeds with or without net neutrality will allow for people to stream on 4k
"people don't need to buy 4k"
Can we just stop responding to him now?
He is clearly just trolling every subject.
:huh:
4k isn't coming next year or probably the year after that for most of america. I don't know anyone who plans on getting 4k, except a very niche crowd.
for example, if I want to play rainbow six siege on 4k and run it at 60fps or higher, I have to buy a pretty expensive computer. the current generation of consoles don't even run 4k. the whole 4k thing is such a meme at this point that it's still a few years away from being widely adopted as the new standard.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 17, 2017, 10:09:17 AM
4k isn't coming next year or probably the year after that for most of america.
This is technology we are talking about. It moves very fast, often much faster than we think. And since when do public policy plans only need to consider projections for 'next year'? They have to take into account the situation 10 or 20 years from now. What is a novelty today may be the standard in a few months. It certainly has happened before.
But I don't know the extent the FCC is going to be making studies and projections and facilitating expansion of infrastructure to meet those projections.
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2017, 09:18:08 AM
stupid forecast. That's the problem with you guys, ignoring the future. "640kb is all we'll ever need".
Well exactly. What if in 1996 decisions had been made that anything more than dial-up was a novelty and important long term decisions had been made based on that?
Quote from: Syt on February 17, 2017, 09:21:22 AM
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2017, 09:18:08 AMIt's already hard to stream 1080p content, I often have to wait 20 minutes or more before I start watching a movie.
What kind of connection are you on?
30mbps down, 12 up at the very best. I'm often way below that.
Ok, yeah, that's bad for HD streaming.
Quote from: LaCroix on February 17, 2017, 09:31:27 AM
the countryside won't have 56kbps speed
If I drive 10 minutes south of here, I'll meet people who have access only to these kind of speeds. 30 minutes south-east and they don't even have cell phone coverage.
Either they rely on a modem for upload and download, or they rely on a modem for upload and a satellite connection for download. It's still a very slow connection.
Their only hope is the new provincial and federal program to subsidize high speed internet connection so that more providers will be interested in offering services in small communities.
Meanwhile, due to their high concentration in a very small area, people in the cities can get 4k fiber optic cable and very high speed (100mpbs) internet connection. But apparently, they don't need it. So I guess all these 4k tv solds are for people who don't need it :)
I can get 920mbps down.
Too much money tho.
Got 250 and it's plenty for now. Games of a few dozen GB still take a couple of minutes to download, though. <_<
viper, the canadian countryside must differ substantially from the American countryside
also, I've said this entire time 1gbps isn't needed. you just defined "very high speed" as 100mbps, a tenth of what I said :huh:
Quote from: LaCroix on February 17, 2017, 02:47:35 PM
viper, the canadian countryside must differ substantially from the American countryside
from everything I read, not by much.
check my edit
if people can't get 15mbps right now, they have more problems than net neutrality. so the argument doesn't make sense
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/it-begins-trumps-fcc-launches-attack-on-net-neutrality-transparency-rules
QuoteIt Begins: Trump's FCC Launches Attack on Net Neutrality Transparency Rules
Net neutrality, the internet's open access principle, is under assault by the Trump administration.
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted to eliminate open internet transparency protections for millions of consumers, in the Trump administration's most overt salvo yet in its nascent campaign to dismantle net neutrality protections.
As a result of Thursday's action, "thousands" of small and medium-sized internet service providers (ISPs) around the country are no longer required to give their customers detailed information about broadband prices, speeds and fees, according to the FCC.
The newly-rolled-back disclosure requirements, which were designed to help consumers make informed decisions when selecting an ISP, were a key part of the FCC's 2015 policy safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible.
Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer who was installed by the Trump administration to lead the agency last month, framed Thursday's action as a move to "relieve thousands of smaller broadband providers from onerous reporting obligations."
Pai, who has claimed to be a champion of "transparency," asserted that removing the disclosure requirements would allow ISPs to save money that can then be used for broadband deployment.
But consumer advocates blasted the move as a brazen attempt to undermine net neutrality protections that open internet advocates say are essential for economic growth, civic empowerment, and free speech.
"This represents yet another in a series of steps being taken to jettison pro-consumer initiatives, and we should not stand silent as consumer protections 'go gentle into that good night,'" Democratic FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, a longtime open internet advocate who voted against the move, said at the agency's monthly meeting on Thursday.
"Consumers deserve truth in pricing information," Sen. Edward J. Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat, said in a statement. "Instead of allowing ISPs to hide pricing information, the FCC should promote transparency so subscribers have all the background they need to make educated decisions about their broadband service."
FCC Chairman Pai has made no secret of his distaste for the FCC's net neutrality policy, which prohibits ISPs from favoring their own services or discriminating against rivals. Earlier this month, Pai halted the agency's inquiry into zero-rating, a controversial practice in which ISPs exempt certain services from data caps, effectively favoring those offerings at the expense of rivals.
Open internet advocates say such zero-rating practices violate open internet principles by creating the kind of discriminatory online environment that the FCC's net neutrality policy was designed to prevent.
Thursday's FCC action is the clearest signal yet that Pai and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to undermine net neutrality protections, an outcome that would hand a major victory to the nation's largest cable and phone companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.
"Here's how cost-benefit analysis works in the Trump administration and at the Pai FCC: If any favored lobby like the cable industry claims that rules cost them money, the agency will zap those rules—without any regard for their benefits," said Matt Wood, policy director at DC-based public interest group Free Press.
Broadband providers with fewer than 100,000 subscribers were already exempt from the net neutrality transparency requirements. But Thursday's action boosts the exemption limit to companies with as many as 250,000 subscribers, a substantial increase that could affect as many as 9.7 million consumers, mostly in rural and underserved communities, according to Sen. Markey's office.
By increasing the exemption limit, Pai has eliminated the transparency requirements for many firms that are actually local or regional subsidiaries of the nation's largest broadband companies, which remain subject to the disclosure rules, according to FCC Commissioner Clyburn.
"Many of the nation's largest broadband providers are actually holding companies, comprised of many smaller operating companies," said Clyburn. "So what today's Order does is exempt these companies' affiliates that have under 250,000 connections by declining to aggregate the connection count at the holding company level."
In other words, although Thursday's action does not overtly affect the nation's largest broadband companies, it could have the effect of covertly eliminating disclosure rules for smaller companies in which the broadband giants have a financial stake.
Not surprisingly, the American Cable Association, an industry trade group that represents hundreds of smaller and medium-sized ISPs around the country, praised the elimination of the transparency rules, which the group had long been lobbying against. "ACA thanks Chairman Pai and Commissioner O'Rielly for acting so swiftly to remove the uncertainty small ISPs have lived under for the past two months," ACA CEO Matthew M. Polka said in a statement.
Thursday's FCC action represents just the beginning of the Trump FCC's assault on net neutrality, according to tech policy experts. Public interest groups and open internet advocates are bracing for what could be an epic political battle over the issue, with some activists pledging direct action in the streets to protect the principle.
Privacy rules are also abolished. American ISPs no longer require explicit consent by consumers to share their private data. They're free to sell your name, adress, phone number and e-mail to anyone willing to pay.
Freedom is great!
... says PC Gamer.
http://www.pcgamer.com/goodbye-internet-privacy-us-house-of-representatives-just-killed-fcc-privacy-rules/
QuoteGoodbye internet privacy: U.S. House of Representatives just killed FCC privacy rules
Your ISP is free and clear to do whatever it wants with your browsing history.
No surprises here. Last week, the U.S. Senate voted along party lines to stamp out strong FCC privacy regulations introduced in 2016. And today, the House of Representatives confirmed that those rules are dead, voting 215-205 (with 15 Republicans joining the Democrats to vote against the repeal) to allow ISPs and other telecommunications companies to do whatever they want with your personal data.
As we explained last week, the FCC's protections would have required ISPs to ask opt-in or opt-out permission for what they did with your personal data, like your browsing history. As the FCC's proposed rules summarized, this is what could have been regulatory policy before today's vote:
"In adopting these rules the Commission implements the statutory requirement that telecommunications carriers protect the confidentiality of customer proprietary information. The privacy framework in these rules focuses on transparency, choice, and data security, and provides heightened protection for sensitive customer information, consistent with customer expectations. The rules require carriers to provide privacy notices that clearly and accurately inform customers; obtain opt-in or opt-out customer approval to use and share sensitive or non-sensitive customer proprietary information, respectively; take reasonable measures to secure customer proprietary information; provide notification to customers, the Commission, and law enforcement in the event of data breaches that could result in harm; not condition provision of service on the surrender of privacy rights; and provide heightened notice and obtain affirmative consent when offering financial incentives in exchange for the right to use a customer's confidential information. The Commission also revises its current telecommunications privacy rules to harmonize today's privacy rules for all telecommunications carriers, and provides a tailored exemption from these rules for enterprise customers of telecommunications services other than [broadband internet]."
The resolution now heads to the White House, where President Trump will presumably sign it. The White House put out a news release this morning to that effect, claiming that the opt-in and opt-out rules for ISPs "depart from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor."
Similarly, Republican Representative Marsha Blackburn, chair of the House subcommittee that oversees the FCC, said "[Consumer privacy] will be enhanced by removing the uncertainty and confusion these rules will create," according to The Washington Post. Blackburn is also not a fan of net neutrality.
With no FCC rules on the horizon to shape how ISPs handle privacy, it will be up to the industry to decide for itself how best to tell you what it's doing with your data. Good luck with that, friends!
If you're concerned about what to do to protect your online privacy, the EFF recommends these tools.
Well, at least all the gay porn makers will now be able to properly target Republican politicians with their ads. ;)
https://www.gofundme.com/buycongressdata
QuoteCongress recently voted to strip Americans of their privacy rights by voting for SJR34, a resolution that allows Internet Service Providers to collect, and sell your sensitive data without your consent or knowledge.
Since Congress has made our privacy a commodity, let's band together to buy THEIR privacy.
This GoFundMe will pay to purchase the data of every Congressperson who voted for SJR34 and to make it publicly available.
PS: No, we won't "doxx" people. We will not share information that will impact the safety & security of their families (such as personal addresses). However, all other details are fair game. It says so right in the resolution that they voted to approve.
Game on, Congress.
PS: In the event that we don't raise enough money to buy the data, all proceeds will go to the ACLU to help fight to protect all Americans' rights. Thanks.
:lol:
And from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/five-creepy-things-your-isp-could-do-if-congress-repeals-fccs-privacy-protections
QuoteFive Creepy Things Your ISP Could Do if Congress Repeals the FCC's Privacy Protections
Why are we so worried about Congress repealing the FCC's privacy rules for ISPs? Because we've seen ISPs do some disturbing things in the past to invade their users' privacy. Here are five examples of creepy practices that could make a resurgence if we don't stop Congress now.
5. Selling your data to marketers
Which ISPs did it before? We don't know—but they're doing it as you read this!
It's no secret that many ISPs think they're sitting on a gold mine of user data that they want to sell to marketers. What some people don't realize is that some are already doing it. (Unfortunately they're getting away with this for now because the FCC's rules haven't gone into effect yet.)
According to Ad Age, SAP sells a service called Consumer Insights 365, which "ingests regularly updated data representing as many as 300 cellphone events per day for each of the 20 million to 25 million mobile subscribers." What type of data does Consumer Insights 365 "ingest?" Again, according to Ad Age, "The service also combines data from telcos with other information, telling businesses whether shoppers are checking out competitor prices... It can tell them the age ranges and genders of people who visited a store location between 10 a.m. and noon, and link location and demographic data with shoppers' web browsing history." And who is selling SAP their customers' data? Ad Age says "SAP won't disclose the carriers providing this data."
In other words, mobile broadband providers are too afraid to tell you, their customers, that they're selling data about your location, demographics, and browsing history. Maybe that's because it's an incredibly creepy thing to do, and these ISPs don't want to get caught red-handed.
And speaking of getting caught red-handed, that brings us to...
4. Hijacking your searches
Which ISPs did it before? Charter, Cogent, DirecPC, Frontier, Wide Open West (to name a few)
Back in 2011, several ISPs were caught red-handed working with a company called Paxfire to hijack their customers' search queries to Bing, Yahoo!, and Google. Here's how it worked.
When you entered a search term in your browser's search box or URL bar, your ISP directed that query to Paxfire instead of to an actual search engine. Paxfire then checked what you were searching for to see if it matched a list of companies that had paid them for more traffic. If your query matched one of these brands (e.g. you had typed in "apple", "dell", or "wsj", to name a few) then Paxfire would send you directly to that company's website instead of sending you to a search engine and showing you all the search results (which is what you'd normally expect). The company would then presumably give Paxfire some money, and Paxfire would presumably give your ISP some money.
In other words, ISPs were hijacking their customers' search queries and redirecting them to a place customers hadn't asked for, all while pocketing a little cash on the side. Oh, and the ISPs in question hadn't bothered to tell their customers they'd be sending their search traffic to a third party that might record some of it.
It's hard to believe we're still on the subtle end of the creepy spectrum. But things are about to get a whole lot more in-your-face creepy, with...
3. Snooping through your traffic and inserting ads
Which ISPs did it before? AT&T, Charter, CMA
This is the biggest one people are worried about, and with good reason—ISPs have every incentive to snoop through your traffic, record what you're browsing, and then inject ads into your traffic based on your browsing history.
Plenty of ISPs have done it before—AT&T did it on some of their paid wifi hotspots; Charter did it with its broadband customers; and a smaller ISP called CMA did the same.
We don't think this one requires much explaining for folks to understand just how privacy invasive this is. But if you need a reminder, we're talking about the company that carries all your Internet traffic examining each packet in detail1 to build up a profile on you, which they can then use to inject even more ads into your browsing experience. (Or, even worse—they could hire a third-party company like NebuAd or Phorm to do all this for them.) That's your ISP straight up spying on you to sell ads—and turning the creepiness factor up to eleven.2 And speaking of spying, we'd be remiss if we didn't mention...
2. Pre-installing software on your phone and recording every URL you visit
Which ISPs did it before? AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile
When you buy a new Android phone, you probably expect it to come with some bloatware—apps installed by the manufacturer or carrier that you're never going to use. You don't expect it to come preinstalled with software that logs which apps you use and what websites you visit and sends data back to your ISP. But that's exactly what was uncovered when security researcher and EFF client Trevor Eckhart did some digging into Carrier IQ, an application that came preinstalled on phones sold by AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
This is even creepier than number three on our list (watching your traffic and injecting ads), because at least with number three, your ISP can only see your unencrypted traffic. With Carrier IQ, your ISP could also see what encrypted (HTTPS) URLs you visit and record what apps you use.
Simply put, preinstalled software like Carrier IQ gives your ISP a window into everything you do on your phone. While mobile ISPs may have backed down on using Carrier IQ in the past (and the situation led to a class action lawsuit), you can bet that if the FCC's privacy rules are rolled back there'll be ISPs be eager to start something similar.
But none of these creepy practices holds a candle to the ultimate, creepiest thing ISPs want to do with your traffic, which is...
1. Injecting undetectable, undeletable tracking cookies in all of your HTTP traffic
Which ISPs did it before? AT&T, Verizon
The number one creepiest thing on our list of privacy-invasive practices comes courtesy of Verizon (and AT&T, which quickly killed a similar program after Verizon started getting blowback).
Back in 2014 Verizon Wireless decided that it was a good idea to insert supercookies into all of its mobile customers' traffic. Yes, you read that right—it's as if some Verizon exec thought "inserting tracking headers into all our customers' traffic can't have a down side, can it?" Oh, and, for far too long, they didn't bother to explicitly tell their customers ahead of time.
But it gets worse. Initially, there was no way for customers to turn this "feature" off. It didn't matter if you were browsing in Incognito or Private Browsing mode, using a tracker-blocker, or had enabled Do-Not-Track: Verizon ignored all this and inserted a unique identifier into all your unencrypted outbound traffic anyway. According to the FCC, it wasn't until "two years after Verizon Wireless first began inserting UIDH, that the company updated its privacy policy to disclose its use of UIDH and began to offer consumers the opportunity to opt-out of the insertion of unique identifier headers into their Internet traffic."
As a result, anyone—not just advertisers—could track you as you browsed the web. Even if you cleared your cookies, advertisers could use Verizon's tracking header to resurrect them, which led to something called "zombie cookies." If that doesn't sound creepy, we don't know what does.
As you can see, there's a lot at stake in this fight. The FCC privacy rules congress is trying to kill would limit all of these creepy practices (and even ban some of them outright). So don't forget to call your senators and representative right now—because if we don't stop Congress from killing the FCC's ISP privacy rules now, we may end up with a lot more than five creepy ISP practices in the future.
Existential question: if ISPs selling your porn browsing history for profit makes Yi cum like a volcano, does that make it internet porn about internet porn?
Comcast already seems to be injecting ads. Ublock Origin has had a hard time keeping up this morning.
VPNs ftw
Wait there were privacy laws? Huh.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 29, 2017, 06:53:31 AM
Intellectual masturbation: if ISPs selling your porn browsing history for profit makes Yi cum like a volcano, does that make it internet porn about internet porn?
Fixed! :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 29, 2017, 10:16:52 AM
Wait there were privacy laws? Huh.
There were, but they weren't implemented yet, and the new FCC chairman already killed them when he came into office (he actually said he would not enforce them, Congress just makes it legit).
Great clip from the floor of the House yesterday of Michael Capuano (D-Mass) losing his shit in "...And Justice For All" fashion.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4663947/rep-michael-capuano-repealing-fcc-internet-privacy-rule
I like how he starts out all clam before breaking into his spiel.
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2017, 07:51:38 PM
I like how he starts out all clam before breaking into his spiel.
Don't mussel in on that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 29, 2017, 07:54:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 29, 2017, 07:51:38 PM
I like how he starts out all clam before breaking into his spiel.
Don't mussel in on that.
Well, shucks.
He did seem pretty steamed.
God dammit. Today has not been a good day for me.
Karmic justice
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/activist-finds-the-perfect-way-to-turn-tables-on-lawmakers-who-voted-to-repeal-internet-privacy-rule/
QuoteActivist finds the perfect way to turn tables on lawmakers who voted to repeal internet privacy rule
ERIN CORBETT
29 MAR 2017 AT 14:45 ET
Republicans in Congress voted this week to gut a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) privacy rule that would sell everyone out to Internet Service Providers (ISP). The push will give ISPs the right to sell customer data to marketers, insert ads in your traffic, and insert tracking cookies in HTTP traffic that can't be deleted or traced.
Repealing the FCC guidelines is a huge blow to online privacy. So Adam McElhaney, an activist based in Chattanooga, Tennessee who cares about privacy and net neutrality set up a GoFundMe page to collect donations to buy the internet histories of everyone who voted to repeal the FCC's privacy protections.
The page is called "Purchase Private Internet Histories."
"I think that your private Internet history should be yours," McElhaney wrote on the page. "I also believe your Internet should be neutral. I am raising money to help secure those freedoms."
McElhaney explained that because the Senate is gutting online privacy and allowing anyone's internet histories to be purchased, "I plan on purchasing the Internet histories of all legislators, congressmen, executives, and their families and make them easily searchable at searchinternethistory.com."
"Everything from their medical, pornographic, to their financial and infidelity," McElhaney wrote. "Help me raise money to buy the histories of those who took away your right to privacy for just thousands of dollars from telephone and ISPs. Your private data will be bought and sold to marketing companies, law enforcement. "
"I don't think that what I lookup on the Internet, what sites I visit, my browsing habits, should be bought and sold to whoever. Without my consent," McElhany noted, with a call to action. "Let's turn the tables. Let's buy THEIR history and make it availble [sic]."
"Join me in the fight to turn the tables and do whatever it takes to take back your privacy."
The page has so far raised $54,446, after intending only to raise $10,000.
Tim, the link is the third post in this thread. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Syt on March 30, 2017, 12:54:28 AM
Tim, the link is the third post in this thread. :rolleyes:
Whoops, we'll now you have an update on their funding situation.
Apparently Trump's fanboys on Reddit are getting their panties all twisted and whatnot over this, and are trying really hard to convince themselves that Trump will actually veto the bill when it comes to him.
The number of fallout this is going to cause will be way worse than Private email server.
Oh, those idiots.
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2017, 03:43:29 AM
Apparently Trump's fanboys on Reddit are getting their panties all twisted and whatnot over this, and are trying really hard to convince themselves that Trump will actually veto the bill when it comes to him.
I don't want government in my life- MUH FREEDOM! But Warner snooping over my porn habits is okay.
It just means that everybody* is going to use the Pete Townsend defense.
*Everybody of note, that is.
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2017, 03:43:29 AM
Apparently Trump's fanboys on Reddit are getting their panties all twisted and whatnot over this, and are trying really hard to convince themselves that Trump will actually veto the bill when it comes to him.
The bill originated from the desire of his own selected FCC chairman.
Quote from: viper37 on March 30, 2017, 10:49:31 AM
Quote from: The Larch on March 30, 2017, 03:43:29 AM
Apparently Trump's fanboys on Reddit are getting their panties all twisted and whatnot over this, and are trying really hard to convince themselves that Trump will actually veto the bill when it comes to him.
The bill originated from the desire of his own selected FCC chairman.
Of course he's not going to veto. Trump doesn't give a crap about the feelings of internet shitposters, no matter how much they supported him.
QuoteGOP rep defends online privacy rollback: 'Nobody has got to use the internet'
By Mallory Shelbourne - 04-15-17 22:55 PM EDT
TheHill.com
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) at a recent town hall told a woman worried about internet privacy that using the internet is optional.
In the video, first made public by the liberal super PAC American Bridge, Sensenbrenner responds to a woman asking about Congress's decision to roll back Obama-era internet privacy laws.
"Well, you know, nobody has got to use the internet," Sensenbrenner told the woman.
"And the thing is that if you start regulating the internet like a utility, if we did that right at the beginning, we would have no internet," he continued.
Sensenbrenner added that he does not think it's his "job" to say "you cannot get advertising for your information being sold."
"I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives," he said.
The House last month voted to undo privacy regulations adopted last year by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Trump signed the legislation, blocking the regulations.
The FCC rules, which had not yet gone into effect, would have given consumers greater control over what their internet service providers could do with their data by requiring that companies get permission before using customers' information for targeted ads.
Republicans argued that the regulations would have forced internet service providers to adhere to rules that don't apply to websites such as Google or Facebook, which also collect consumer information for data-driven ads.
The GOP is all about choice. You don't have to use the internet, you don't have to use the healthcare system, you don't have to drink that polluted water coming out of your pipes etc.
Freedom!
Quote"I think we ought to have more choices rather than fewer choices with the government controlling our everyday lives," he said.
What exactly does that even mean in this context? This is about rules for internet service providers it doesn't give more government control over anybody. Because people love what Facebook does stealing their personal information and wanted more of it? For freedom?
None of you people deserve shit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 12:53:01 PM
None of you people deserve shit.
Deserving has nothing to do with it.
Entitled little shits. When I was 18 , we didn't have the internet! We had Compuserve and we liked it!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 01:02:23 PM
Entitled little shits. When I was 18 , we didn't have the internet! We had Compuserve and we liked it!
We did have Compuserve, but I for one did not like it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 01:02:23 PM
Entitled little shits. When I was 18 , we didn't have the internet! We had Compuserve and we liked it!
ANd at their long distance dial-up costs, we were allocated 4 minutes a month.
Can someone build a time machine and send the GOP back to the 19th century?
Quote from: Solmyr on April 18, 2017, 04:48:34 PM
Can someone build a time machine and send the GOP back to the 19th century?
Better not. The current vision would side with the Confederacy.
They're already there, don't you think?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2017, 01:35:08 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 01:02:23 PM
Entitled little shits. When I was 18 , we didn't have the internet! We had Compuserve and we liked it!
ANd at their long distance dial-up costs, we were allocated 4 minutes a month.
You savored that 4 minutes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 07:42:14 PM
You savored that 4 minutes.
3 minutes of it was waiting for the 2400-baud modem to connect.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2017, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 07:42:14 PM
You savored that 4 minutes.
3 minutes of it was waiting for the 2400-baud modem to connect.
Oooooo! A rich guy! Mr. 2400 baud!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 18, 2017, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 07:42:14 PM
You savored that 4 minutes.
3 minutes of it was waiting for the 2400-baud modem to connect.
Oooooo! A rich guy! Mr. 2400 baud!
Quotehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2017, 07:45:35 PM
Oooooo! A rich guy! Mr. 2400 baud!
Don't give me that shit, Mr. Commodore 128.
My aunt had a Commodore 128 back in the day. I was so jelly with my puny little Commodore 64 at first. Then I realized there were like only 5 games she could run that I couldn't. :D
My best friend's dad bought a 128-- obviously twice as good as a C64. Well, looked nicer anyway.
http://www.pcgamer.com/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-sets-course-to-dismantle-net-neutrality-rules/
QuoteFCC Chairman Ajit Pai sets course to dismantle net neutrality rules
Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai has not wavered on his stance that his Democratic predecessor erred when adopting net neutrality rules under the previous administration. He reiterated that it was a "serious mistake" to try and regulate the Internet to the degree which net neutrality rules do, and will push forward a proposal to roll back current regulations, The Washington Post reports.
"Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. It's basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get," Pai said during a speech at the Newseum in Washington on Wednesday.
The writing was on wall as soon as Pai was named Chairman of the FCC after being nominated by current President Donald Trump. Pai has long been opposed to treating Internet service as a utility, saying at Mobile World Congress that the FCC's utility-style regulations "created uncertainty in the market, and uncertainty is the enemy of growth."
In keeping with that theme, Pai will look to loosen the government's oversight of Internet service providers and wireless carriers. While short on details, high-speed Internet service would no longer be regulated like a utility as it is now. Instead, companies like Comcast and Verizon would go back to policing themselves.
Under the previous administration, President Barack Obama publicly pushed to reclassify broadband as a common carrier service, which would allow the FCC to implement net neutrality rules. The goal was to create a level playing field and to prevent ISPs from implementing policies that could hurt consumers, such as charging for access to so-called Internet fast lanes. Without the rules in place, ISPs could essentially force companies like Netflix to pay a toll to avoid throttling video feeds.
Pai's plan to rewrite those rules will take some time and will be subject to comments and revisions. But because this is a partisan issue with Republicans having a 2-to-1 majority on the commission, his plan is likely to pass.
Obviously not everyone agrees with Pai and his proposal.
"It would put consumers at the mercy of phone and cable companies," said Craig Aaron, president of the consumer advocacy group Free Press, according to The New York Times. "In a fantasy world, all would be fine with a pinkie swear not to interrupt pathways and portals to the internet despite a history of doing that."
Pai's proposal is also unpopular with many technology companies in Silicon Valley. Some 800 tech startups and investors wrote a joint letter protesting Pai's plan.
"Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the Internet would be able to pick winners and losers in the market," they wrote in the letter.
Pai's proposal will be voted on at the FCC's May 18 open meeting. If it passes, the FCC will seek public feedback.
Quote from: derspiess on April 19, 2017, 11:23:41 AM
My best friend's dad bought a 128-- obviously twice as good as a C64. Well, looked nicer anyway.
Did not know the 8-bit Commodore computers were so popular in the US, or at least Languish. :P
Quote"Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. It's basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get," Pai said during a speech at the Newseum in Washington on Wednesday.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2017, 06:20:38 AM
Quote"Two years ago, I warned that we were making a serious mistake. It's basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you're likely to get," Pai said during a speech at the Newseum in Washington on Wednesday.
:hmm:
It's true. I get less dirty water now than I would if it weren't regulated.