Battle for the Internet's Future

[FrgMstr]

I am fairly sure that most of our readers are very aware of Net Neutrality and what it is all about and that it going away is likely not a good thing for all of us. If you have not taken the time to write the FCC and your Congressman, Battle for the Net makes that very simple, and I encourage you to do so. You can even go a bit further if you happen to own or be involved with serving content on the Net yourself. July 12th! Got there and join the protest.


The FCC wants to destroy net neutrality and give big cable companies control over what we see and do online. If they get their way, they’ll allow widespread throttling, blocking, censorship, and extra fees. To protect free speech and keep the Internet awesome, we need to reach decision makers with comments, emails, and phone calls right now.

 

[scojer]

Done and done.

 

[Zion Halcyon]

Meh. I know it will go into the void, but I'm fine with tearing down this version of Net Neutrality, since it doesn't deliver.

People don't realize the internet was already lost when the US willingly gave up the rights of ICANN to a foreign body. Since then, censorship on the internet in the US is at an all time high. At this point, what does it matter any more?

 

[Gorankar]

My senator is still coming to grips with that new fangled color TV contraption. Can't decide whether he is for or against red blood on TV shows or not. It is awaste of time, but I will drop a letter in the snail mail. E.ail would be too edgy for him.

 

[nysmo]

Meh. I know it will go into the void, but I'm fine with tearing down this version of Net Neutrality, since it doesn't deliver.

People don't realize the internet was already lost when the US willingly gave up the rights of ICANN to a foreign body. Since then, censorship on the internet in the US is at an all time high. At this point, what does it matter any more?

wtf are you talking about? ICANN has nothing to do with NN. If Comcast were so inclined tomorrow they could offer an unlimited data package for their Xfinity online service allowing all streaming content on their network to be free and not count against your monthly cap. Then they could institute a 200GB data cap for everything else and then you can say goodbye to Netflix. Bullshit like that is what NN aims to address, not fucking domain names.

 

[kamikazi]

Remember that the current implementation of Net Neutrality has actually not been implemented yet. The death of Net Neutrality will go un-noticed for the most part. My understanding is that right now, your ISP could decide to hammer you with throttling and blocking content, but has mostly decided not to because of the free market and what-not. They have the same rights as Google, Facebook, etc. on what they could block you from seeing right now. Hopefully, the FTC will also keep things in check.

 

[thesmokingman]

Done.

 

[Biznatch]

Remember that the current implementation of Net Neutrality has actually not been implemented yet. The death of Net Neutrality will go un-noticed for the most part. My understanding is that right now, your ISP could decide to hammer you with throttling and blocking content, but has mostly decided not to because of the free market and what-not. They have the same rights as Google, Facebook, etc. on what they could block you from seeing right now. Hopefully, the FTC will also keep things in check.

Google and facebook filtering content on their own free services has nothing to do with NN either.... This has to do with preventing the actual tunnel to your house from being filtered or altered to favor the ISPs other services or anything else. If google/facebook are filtering, you can just go elsewhere. If your ISP starts doing it, you don't have many options... And anyone who thinks that won't immediately apply to VPNs is about as naive as it gets. So don't think you'll just VPN around their filtering, because they'll just throttle the shit out of your VPN connection making it useles....

 

[westrock2000]

If Comcast were so inclined tomorrow they could offer an unlimited data package for their Xfinity online service allowing all streaming content on their network to be free and not count against your monthly cap. Then they could institute a 200GB data cap for everything else and then you can say goodbye to Netflix. Bullshit like that is what NN aims to address, not fucking domain names.

They could do all that. But they haven't. I'm sure there are reasons.

 

[Deleted member 108676]

Read the fine print on that site. It says your info can be listed in a database and you could be contacted about future campaigns.

 

[aaronspink]

Remember that the current implementation of Net Neutrality has actually not been implemented yet. The death of Net Neutrality will go un-noticed for the most part. My understanding is that right now, your ISP could decide to hammer you with throttling and blocking content, but has mostly decided not to because of the free market and what-not. They have the same rights as Google, Facebook, etc. on what they could block you from seeing right now. Hopefully, the FTC will also keep things in check.

I don't know where you are getting your information from but it is incorrect. Current NN regulations are very much in effect by law. And no, they don't have free reign on what they can throttle and what they can block atm, by rule. And no, they haven't mostly decided to not do things because of free markets and what-not, because they are pretty much not in a free market, they are in a monopoly or duopoly market.

 

[nysmo]

They could do all that. But they haven't. I'm sure there are reasons.

It's already beginning with mobile carriers offering free data for services they provide or partner with and capping everything else. Tmobile offers unmetered Slacker usage I believe. So if you are a Pandora subscriber and you can get relatively the same experience as Spotify but save $10/month who are you going to go to?

The only reason big ISP's havent tried this yet is they simply hadnt got around to it. Their competitive efforts have by and large been offering greater bandwidth and still clinging to the dying TV market. Once the major terrestrial networks go online then ISP's will build out tiered internet just like they have with tiered television, hence the desire to argue the internet as just a toy for entertainment rather than a communications service.

 

[Exavior]

Are most readers here aware of Net Neutrality? Yes. Do most have any idea what it actually means or is supposed to be for? Nope.

 

[GlowingGhoul]

Net Neutrality (at least what people think of when they hear that term) needs to come in the form of democratically enacted legislation, not by allowing the unelected FCC to grant itself expanded powers....unless you like the idea of the FCC imposing it's ideas regarding 'fairness' on internet speech in the future.

That's ultimately what this is about, unless you want me to believe that overnight, a lifelong telecommunications lobbyist had an epiphany and became the enemy of cable companies. It's about the long game, and the calculation was made that by making the unelected FCC more powerful than it is it will be a far more useful tool to suppress political opposition in the future. You'll never poison someone by trying to give them something that tastes like poison, you have to candy coat it.

 

[lcpiper]

wtf are you talking about? ICANN has nothing to do with NN. If Comcast were so inclined tomorrow they could offer an unlimited data package for their Xfinity online service allowing all streaming content on their network to be free and not count against your monthly cap. Then they could institute a 200GB data cap for everything else and then you can say goodbye to Netflix. Bullshit like that is what NN aims to address, not fucking domain names.

Then why don't they?

If it's so easy to do and so obviously beneficial, why haven't they already done it?

 

[Gigus Fire]

The problem isn't caps, it's a lack of competition. If Company A decided to penalize it's customers for actually using the product and Company B didn't, people would switch. At least there's competition in the cell phone marketplace in which this exact scenario happens.

What Net Neutrality tries to do is regulate a mono/duopoly. They could just enforce common carrier status and stop the fencing that is caps.
Then again, the negatives to net neutrality is that the government wants to monitor the connections to enforce net neutrality, which gets them into the monitoring business. Just like with everything else, once they do that it won't be long until they start using that monitoring for other purposes.
That's the biggest gripe that people against net neutrality have at the moment.

 

[Exavior]

The problem isn't caps, it's a lack of competition. If Company A decided to penalize it's customers for actually using the product and Company B didn't, people would switch. At least there's competition in the cell phone marketplace in which this exact scenario happens.

What Net Neutrality tries to do is regulate a mono/duopoly. They could just enforce common carrier status and stop the fencing that is caps.
Then again, the negatives to net neutrality is that the government wants to monitor the connections to enforce net neutrality, which gets them into the monitoring business. Just like with everything else, once they do that it won't be long until they start using that monitoring for other purposes.
That's the biggest gripe that people against net neutrality have at the moment.

nope, people don't care. People only care about price. If Company A is cheaper and penalizes you and Company B is more expensive for slower speeds but doesn't penalize you, people will go with A all day long and just deal with the penalty. And in many cases B is higher because B is regulated and A is not. So the government and other bodies tell B how much to charge while A can do what they want. To really help both A and B need to be able to play by the same rules. Which won't happen since only certain types of companies have to follow all rules by law.

The reason for lack of competition is because the market won't support it. The reason that Comcast exist and may other companies exist is because the gates were open some time ago to allow competition. Comcast is actually a CLEC or competitive local exchange carrier. The C part of that name is due to the fact that they are there to compete with the local carrier. You guys don't realize how expensive it really is and how little you get back for massive deployments. Nobody wants to spend a few hundred million to hit up a small town of 50K people only to then have to wait 15 - 30 years to get that money back. Which in reality by then you will need to have upgraded equipment so in reality you will probably never break even. We ran fiber through a few subdivisions now. Most people were content with keeping Comcast if they didn't already have us for service. most people on fiber went with the lowest speed package we have with is 10Mbps. A few took 25. Was really surprised that after 300 houses hit with fiber finally had two take 100Mbps package. many just don't care s they just want whatever is cheapest. And to hit those 300 houses probably spent about $750,000 - $800,000 so far. Cost us about $2500 - $2750 per house to get them connected by the time you factor in everything with us running fiber to every house in the area. So all that money spent and very little in additional revenue from the customers, pretty much made it a waste if looking at it from a profit mindset. We just looked at it from a mindset of I couldn't give them the max speeds I wanted to so needed to do something to give them better offerings period. The only cheap / fast solution is wireless but then you are limited on the speed. Although in many areas that is what you end up with, a few wired solutions and a few wireless solutions since that is easy to get up and running.

 

[d8lock]

Then why don't they?

If it's so easy to do and so obviously beneficial, why haven't they already done it?

Why don't I go rob a bank and steal a car too? Stupid ass post.

 

[lcpiper]

The problem isn't caps, it's a lack of competition. If Company A decided to penalize it's customers for actually using the product and Company B didn't, people would switch. At least there's competition in the cell phone marketplace in which this exact scenario happens.

What Net Neutrality tries to do is regulate a mono/duopoly. They could just enforce common carrier status and stop the fencing that is caps.
Then again, the negatives to net neutrality is that the government wants to monitor the connections to enforce net neutrality, which gets them into the monitoring business. Just like with everything else, once they do that it won't be long until they start using that monitoring for other purposes.
That's the biggest gripe that people against net neutrality have at the moment.

I'm not going to dance around the bush on this one much. Your logic on this monitoring thing is so flawed, people here at work are falling out of their seats.

Law Enforcement doesn't need an excuse to monitor such things, they just need warrants, and only warrants will suffice.

Intelligence Agencies don't even need warrants unless it's activities are directed against US persons, but as long as they can filter by IP or target specific physical pipes where the other "station" is foreign, it's all game on for them. Other than these two, I can't imagine who, in some other agency, would care enough to do something like what you are saying.

I have said this so many times and still people seem to let it just fly right over their heads.

If you ask the Federal Government to do something, they will, maybe not the way you want them to, but they will do something. And it will cost tax payer money to do so. It will create more government jobs and regulation and interference in our lives.

People wanted Net neutrality and they asked federal Government to get involved. The Government doesn't have to make this shit up. We do it to ourselves over and over again. So no need to try and blame the government boogie man for such things when this web site is a perfect example of the continuing effort our own people go through in order to ensure that our government keeps getting bigger, and keeps getting into our business at every turn.

We do this to ourselves man.

 

[lcpiper]

Why don't I go rob a bank and steal a car too? Stupid ass post.

Please explain

 

[ob1]

Honestly, some of you really just need to read an unbiased version of this issue(s). The preconceived notions about what you think are not doing you or us any favors. Just google title 1/2 utilities and how they relate to cable companies and internet providers. Most places in the country, mine included, essentially have a single cable company that provide internet. In some areas they even divide the stuff up so you are either in a Comcast area or something else. So if this changes, your local high speed internet company will most likely be changing their policies, and there will not be anything you can do. It will be a South Park episode in reality....

 

[lcpiper]

Honestly, some of you really just need to read an unbiased version of this issue(s). The preconceived notions about what you think are not doing you or us any favors. Just google title 1/2 utilities and how they relate to cable companies and internet providers. Most places in the country, mine included, essentially have a single cable company that provide internet. In some areas they even divide the stuff up so you are either in a Comcast area or something else. So if this changes, your local high speed internet company will most likely be changing their policies, and there will not be anything you can do. It will be a South Park episode in reality....

General statements without specifing anything in particular is just pissing in the wind. I suppose it's cause you don't want to get into an argument but it leaves ways too much ambiguity to your comment. For instance, you say "preconceived notions about what you think ...." WTF dude, call a spade a spade and step up to the plate and take a swing.

Now I agree about reading unbiased opinions except that I am not really sure where to find an unbiased opinion at. If you know of one, I'll read it, maybe some others here will as well.

I also agree that many people won't have much say so in the matter. If the rules change, we'll probably see the effect, and we may have little to do but accept it.

And I don't watch cartoons so I have no idea what the impact of a South Park reality.

Of course I am still waiting on d8lock to explain what was so "stupid ass" about my previous post.

 

[ob1]

Do you want me to google it for you and then pick out the links that aren't super biased? Is that what you are asking? And generally IC, we usually agree on government stuff in previous threads, but if you want me to call a spade a spade, I surely can start, but that isn't productive is it? Just google title 1/2 and resist reading anything from MS/Fox is all I'm saying....

 

[Despotes]

It's whatever bias is the best bias to be biased with. Down with NN!

 

[Krenum]

Global censorship is the next big thing, the War on Drugs & Terrorism is running long in the tooth for politicians, they need something new for people to gnaw on for awhile. Thanks for the post Kyle & keeping us in the know.

 

[Mystique]

What? How is a human being that isn't a corporate convert in support of abolishing Net Neutrality. Do you people not realize that the internet is the best invention of our generation yet?

 

[oldmanbal]

pretty sure there would be anarchy if they did away with free porn sites.

 

[JackNSally]

Remember that the current implementation of Net Neutrality has actually not been implemented yet. The death of Net Neutrality will go un-noticed for the most part. My understanding is that right now, your ISP could decide to hammer you with throttling and blocking content, but has mostly decided not to because of the free market and what-not. They have the same rights as Google, Facebook, etc. on what they could block you from seeing right now. Hopefully, the FTC will also keep things in check.

Google "Netflix throttling" and then tell me it hasn't happened...

 

[nysmo]

Then why don't they?

If it's so easy to do and so obviously beneficial, why haven't they already done it?

Mobile ISP's are already doing it. Just look at Tmobile offering streaming music with no data cap, or ATT offering streaming DirecTV. Landline ISP's will get there eventually, probably just working out the logistics of it all. It's an easier sell for mobile carriers because people already have data anxiety being used to extremely small caps from the start. The idea of being able to stream Spotify unmetered looks like a positive to the avg consumer despite the fact what it is really engineered to do is get people used to the idea that certain services come with their data. They are being conditioned to buy into a data plan that "includes music", just like one that "includes video" until the internet is successfully turned into an a la carte tiered system of packages. Landline ISP's were never burdened with bandwidth related problems the way mobile carriers were since their infrastructure was far stronger and offered far greater consumption limits.

But you know somebody always ends up at the party with this asinine "well if they were gonna why havent they?" argument as if they've got us. Must everything be some reactionary attempt to unfuck whatever corporate self-interests have ruined a good thing? Like do you have to wait for the bomb to go off before you decide to defuse it? Just look at the outcry from major content providers. Comcast knows they have a battle on their hands that they cant just whisk away under the carpet without a fight. You want to know why they havent started a tiered internet yet? Because they arent ready to.

 

[JackNSally]

Net Neutrality (at least what people think of when they hear that term) needs to come in the form of democratically enacted legislation, not by allowing the unelected FCC to grant itself expanded powers....unless you like the idea of the FCC imposing it's ideas regarding 'fairness' on internet speech in the future.

That's ultimately what this is about, unless you want me to believe that overnight, a lifelong telecommunications lobbyist had an epiphany and became the enemy of cable companies. It's about the long game, and the calculation was made that by making the unelected FCC more powerful than it is it will be a far more useful tool to suppress political opposition in the future. You'll never poison someone by trying to give them something that tastes like poison, you have to candy coat it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but, isn't this about our packets to and from whatever website/service/whatever to be allowed to travel unhindered? Not about inspecting all the packets to censor them?

 

[mesyn191]

Not so fast there Kyle. Net neutrality means different things to different people.

In practical and meaningful terms it only has a different meaning for the ISP industry shills and their lobbyists.

Those people's opinions can all be safely ignored since they're just doing and saying what they're paid to.

 

[aaronspink]

Net Neutrality (at least what people think of when they hear that term) needs to come in the form of democratically enacted legislation, not by allowing the unelected FCC to grant itself expanded powers....unless you like the idea of the FCC imposing it's ideas regarding 'fairness' on internet speech in the future.

The FCC cannot grant itself expanded powers. Its power are explicitly defined by congress.

And if someone is going to impose its ideas whether it is on fairness or anything else, I would much rather it be government regulated and controlled where we the people can actually have an impact rather than a corporation doing whatever the hell it wants.

That's ultimately what this is about, unless you want me to believe that overnight, a lifelong telecommunications lobbyist had an epiphany and became the enemy of cable companies. It's about the long game, and the calculation was made that by making the unelected FCC more powerful than it is it will be a far more useful tool to suppress political opposition in the future. You'll never poison someone by trying to give them something that tastes like poison, you have to candy coat it.

You mean making the FCC as powerful as it has ever been. You mean like classifying internet services under Title II like it has been for the vast majority of its lifetime? Internet services have literally spent decades under Title II. They've spent a fraction of their time not in Title II and that fraction of a time saw the largest consolidation in the industry and the complete eradication of competition.

Your conspiracy theories literally cannot hold up to the base facts. You might need to go back under the bridge and work up some more elaborate conspiracy theory that manages to make it at least past the basic fact level.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Law Enforcement doesn't need an excuse to monitor such things, they just need warrants, and only warrants will suffice.

Like all of their warrants they get for using stingray? They're been trying to circumvent the need for warrants for a long time now. There's tons of history of the fbi and other law enforcement stating they need to bypass warrants. https://www.wired.com/2015/04/ny-cops-used-stingray-spy-tool-46-times-without-warrant/

Intelligence Agencies don't even need warrants unless it's activities are directed against US persons, but as long as they can filter by IP or target specific physical pipes where the other "station" is foreign, it's all game on for them. Other than these two, I can't imagine who, in some other agency, would care enough to do something like what you are saying.

Intelligence agencies are barred from collecting information on citizens (local spying). They've already found a loophole and that's to allow foreign agencies to spy on citizens for them and just use that data http://www.offthegridnews.com/privacy/is-the-nsa-paying-britain-to-spy-on-americans/

If you ask the Federal Government to do something, they will, maybe not the way you want them to, but they will do something. And it will cost tax payer money to do so. It will create more government jobs and regulation and interference in our lives.

So you're for or against nn then?

People wanted Net neutrality and they asked federal Government to get involved. The Government doesn't have to make this shit up. We do it to ourselves over and over again. So no need to try and blame the government boogie man for such things when this web site is a perfect example of the continuing effort our own people go through in order to ensure that our government keeps getting bigger, and keeps getting into our business at every turn.

I agree. The concept of NN is a good idea (keep your hands off my packets basically) but the implementation (gov't has to monitor and keep track of everything to make sure nn is being enforced) is a shitty idea.

 

[lcpiper]

Mobile ISP's are already doing it. Just look at Tmobile offering streaming music with no data cap, or ATT offering streaming DirecTV. Landline ISP's will get there eventually, probably just working out the logistics of it all. It's an easier sell for mobile carriers because people already have data anxiety being used to extremely small caps from the start. The idea of being able to stream Spotify unmetered looks like a positive to the avg consumer despite the fact what it is really engineered to do is get people used to the idea that certain services come with their data. They are being conditioned to buy into a data plan that "includes music", just like one that "includes video" until the internet is successfully turned into an a la carte tiered system of packages. Landline ISP's were never burdened with bandwidth related problems the way mobile carriers were since their infrastructure was far stronger and offered far greater consumption limits.

But you know somebody always ends up at the party with this asinine "well if they were gonna why havent they?" argument as if they've got us. Must everything be some reactionary attempt to unfuck whatever corporate self-interests have ruined a good thing? Like do you have to wait for the bomb to go off before you decide to defuse it? Just look at the outcry from major content providers. Comcast knows they have a battle on their hands that they cant just whisk away under the carpet without a fight. You want to know why they havent started a tiered internet yet? Because they arent ready to.

Mobile ISPs have always had data caps with a few periods of time when exceptions were offered at higher plan rates. At the same exact time, those traditional ISPs that have data caps are usually large enough that most people are not hampered by the cap at all. A person has to be one hell of a data hog or you have a family / group who's aggregate data usage surpasses the norm for them to be a problem. So with this in mind I find it very hard to accept your opinion on this. "probably just working out logistics" is just you pulling something out of your ass unless you have information to back it up.

You say my question is asinine and I greatly disagree. You claimed that "If Comcast were so inclined tomorrow they could offer an unlimited data package for their Xfinity online service allowing all streaming content on their network to be free and not count against your monthly cap. Then they could institute a 200GB data cap for everything else and then you can say goodbye to Netflix."

My question was simple, if they can do this, why haven't they already?

There are only so many logical replies;

1st - It's not as advantageous as it sounds

2nd - It's not legal and/or they can't do it for some other reason

Saying they just haven't felt like doing it yet just doesn't make it with me. You say it's because "They aren't ready to". That sounds to me like they would if they could, but they can't yet.

And that sounds just like answer #2.

And that makes your claim false. You already say this is what they want, so motivation is not in question, only ability. You are saying yourself, that they do not currently have the ability to do what you claimed they can do, "If Comcast were so inclined ..."

It's one or the other.

 

[lcpiper]

Do you want me to google it for you and then pick out the links that aren't super biased? Is that what you are asking? And generally IC, we usually agree on government stuff in previous threads, but if you want me to call a spade a spade, I surely can start, but that isn't productive is it? Just google title 1/2 and resist reading anything from MS/Fox is all I'm saying....

Before I commented I did google it and I did read on it and from what I read it sounded like an unbiased explanation. But you weren't specific enough for anyone to know who's arguments you find valid and who's you believe biased. But it's becoming more clear that you find Fox and MS (although I don't know who MS is), as biased sources. The others aren't biased perhaps, it's just those two. I wish I still had the page up from yesterday I'd link it.

I also agree with that article, I disagree with the actions the FCC took and I do believe that the FCC was causing more harm then good. Calling ISPs utilities and not treating them as businesses is a fuck up of royal proportions because ISPs are clearly still carrying on business and under the FCC, as utilities, they were no longer governed by FTC trade rules and FTC privacy rules. Think back over the last 8 months regarding news related to privacy and what ISPs were doing and see if there is a relationship between those actions and the FCC's regulatory grab and the resulting loss of FTC protections.

Then look here at cases that FTC has resolved regarding our privacy, or search the site itself and look what it is that the FTC not only can, but does pursue. Don't be swayed by claims of what companies can or possibly could do. Go look at what's being done.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/bus...te_value[max][date]=&sort_by=field_date_value

If the FTC needs to step up it's game then I think broadening FTC powers is the answer, not stripping it of control.

Look at the FTC page, see other examples of how the FTC's powers have been enhanced and then imagine a nice net neutrality law tucked right in here with the others.

We do need net neutrality protections, but we need them done properly and not through some bastardized power grab from another agency ill suited to manage the issue.

 

[Gigus Fire]

Mobile ISPs have always had data caps with a few periods of time when exceptions were offered at higher plan rates. At the same exact time, those traditional ISPs that have data caps are usually large enough that most people are not hampered by the cap at all. A person has to be one hell of a data hog or you have a family / group who's aggregate data usage surpasses the norm for them to be a problem. So with this in mind I find it very hard to accept your opinion on this. "probably just working out logistics" is just you pulling something out of your ass unless you have information to back it up.

You say my question is asinine and I greatly disagree. You claimed that "If Comcast were so inclined tomorrow they could offer an unlimited data package for their Xfinity online service allowing all streaming content on their network to be free and not count against your monthly cap. Then they could institute a 200GB data cap for everything else and then you can say goodbye to Netflix."

My question was simple, if they can do this, why haven't they already?

There are only so many logical replies;

1st - It's not as advantageous as it sounds

2nd - It's not legal and/or they can't do it for some other reason

Saying they just haven't felt like doing it yet just doesn't make it with me. You say it's because "They aren't ready to". That sounds to me like they would if they could, but they can't yet.

And that sounds just like answer #2.

And that makes your claim false. You already say this is what they want, so motivation is not in question, only ability. You are saying yourself, that they do not currently have the ability to do what you claimed they can do, "If Comcast were so inclined ..."

It's one or the other.

First off, not a direct reply, but to the person who was talking about att & direct tv. I'm fairly sure that att owns direct tv, so allowing streaming not to be counted towards their cap is a NN issue.

Now straight to the point, ISPs have played games. Instead of playing favorites directly and saying one service is metered and the other isn't, they've been doing this all along. Almost all providers that offer TV also offer pay per view. Pay per view uses your internet connection to stream to the set up boxes and that definitely doesn't count towards your internet usage cap.

The second thing they did is instead of playing with caps against services (netflix) they throttled the connection speed so it would degrade/stutter. Maybe this isn't a hard approach (deny the service outright which would piss off customers and get people to really complain), but it's definitely a more soft approach where they're not denying service outright, they're just lowering the quality of the service and being ambiguous with the reasons why it's happening. At the time, they were blaming netflix and saying it was their streaming services. The underlying message was that if you used their services instead of netflix, you wouldn't have those problems.

Thus you get a loophole into the system.

The reason why they didn't take the hard approach is that they didn't want to piss of enough people that would complain about not having a choice and asking for laws to be passed that disallowed doing this completely. Eventually they did get their way and had netflix host servers on their networks and pay them extra to be able to do this. This also solved the problem in which they tried to double dip in their peering agreements.

 

[nysmo]

My question was simple, if they can do this, why haven't they already?

I could have asked the same thing last year before Tmobile began offering streaming music for free. You could have been rolling your eyes and how preposterous the notion was. Why hasnt Microsoft released a good mobile OS yet? Why hasnt Tesla released an affordable EV yet? Why hasnt my house caught on fire yet? Why do I need insurance? These questions are irrelevant. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. Even if you cant find a good preventative solution for a problem that doesnt exist yet, just throwing your hands up in the air with this assumption that it will never happen because it hasnt happened is as equally absurd as you consider my assumption that it will. There's a million reasons why something might take longer than expected but what do you do when it happens?

 

[lcpiper]

In practical and meaningful terms it only has a different meaning for the ISP industry shills and their lobbyists.

Those people's opinions can all be safely ignored since they're just doing and saying what they're paid to.

So how do we know that this site is not a site for the industry shills?

How does any of us know who battleforthenet.com really is?

What I do know is that they want my Full Name, Email Address, Home Address, and that I see no Privacy Statement or usage statement other than they say they are going to send it all to the FCC and that the FCC "may post it in a searchable database".

They sure don't say how they are "not" going to use our information.

 

[nysmo]

Also, when I said "tomorrow comcast could....." i did not mean literally, I just meant that one day in our future that's how it's going to feel. Comcast isnt going to just flip a switch, it'll be a slow process.

A big reason why they havent begun is because they still have a sweet deal keeping people locked into a proprietary ecosystem of set top boxes and video protocols over coax wiring. A cable box does not operate via TCP so they've already got us in a perfectly good tiered system already.

There are also a few services that arent prepared for on-demand streaming like live broadcasts that attract millions upon millions of users like sports / news. Comcast cant segregate that pool of viewers form the rest of us cord cutter folks even though thats the only thing many cutters say they keep TV packages for.

Then of course comes penetration, how many home users have internet enabled TV's or addon's to make them internet enabled?

How many of those users would have lousy streaming TV service if done via wifi in a large apt complex saturated with hundreds of people doing the same thing within the sphere of their reception?

What do you do about rural areas that do not have high bandwidth networks?

The market is simply not ready for it yet. But you'll never become a leader of industry if you wait for things to happen. You think Comcast's board of directors just sits back and says "welp guys, ATT hasnt done xyz yet, so why should we?" The internet is still young relatively speaking and things are moving at a pretty quick pace. As I initially said I feel comcast probably just isnt ready to do this yet, but it is an easily plausible direction for them to take, especially as they continue to hemorrhage set top users.

 

[nysmo]

So how do we know that this site is not a site for the industry shills?

Honestly I dont think it's a matter of shills, but more a matter of people who just like going against the grain, especially if that popular movement aligns itself with political parties that they disagree with. One of those "if NN is a libtard inspired concept then I'm going to go against it, because fuck them" kinda things. Then you just have the woefully ignorant that misunderstand what NN even means and attribute it specifically to forms of gov't censorship or whatever. I see them here every time NN articles are written, people who werent even around during NN's inception and have learned (incorrectly) about it from off-hand remarks on other forums.