Fcc approves net neutrality plan to control internet access

What kind of idiot thinks it takes 322 pages of regulations to guarantee that "those who pay for the service get equal bandwidth"? That would be insane, wouldn't it? So, there's one regulation about redistribution of bandwidth, and the 322 pages of other regulations are to please the king.

I realize the necessity of bandwidth redistribution so those whose use of the net is minimal, like a grandmother emailing grandchildren, will subsidize those consuming massive amounts of bandwidth streaming movies and music.

 

No one anywhere has argued that "the government should control every aspect" of the internet. If you'd like to acknowledge what the debate is really about then let us know.

 

You mean the same FCC that wrestled with nipplegate for 8 years?

 

What nonsense. Those "4 pages" empowered the legislative branch to make laws and the executive branch to enforce those laws. The Constitution defined our government's framework, not the "entire government." It's gotten to be absurd how people now appeal to the Constitution as if it's the only rule of law we need at every echelon of government.

 

Comrades for Net Neutrality

 

"the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites."


Here is John Oliver's take on it.
[video=youtube;fpbOEoRrHyU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU[/video]

All NN really is, is the prevention of IPO's from making a fast lane and a slow lane. That's it nothing more.As far as how will it be policed, it doesn't need to be policed. The only way it would need to be policed is if NN ends. Which its not.

 

You mean ISP's, not IPO's. And if it is not policed, how will you know the ISP's are complying?

 

Correct I meant ISP's (Internet service providers) not IPO's (Initial Public Offering) thank you for the catch. I'll edit the original post.

As far as how we'd know if ISP's are complying, its rather simple really. As long as they're not selling a services for a "fast lane" they're complying. It would be like the government telling Ford they can't sell red cars anymore. As long as there are no red cars on the lot, they're complying. Thanks again for the catch.

 

From another thread to others.................



http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...341992&page=22

Do you know how networks work? Do you know how many ISP's there are and how many routers they have. Do you know how many ways a network admin could slow traffic down and how they could explain away slower traffic on many things out of their control?

The only way govt could ensure that all ISP's are complying is if they are given access to all data traversing all networks on every ISP route to make sure it is not being manipulated in any way that slows down traffic. So now we have a privacy issue at the user level and the delivery level. Do you want the govt to see everything you transmit and is transmitted to you?

A trace route shows hops, nothing else. And what 'multiple tests' can you do to see what configs admins are using different protocols or paths that in in effect slow traffic down intentionally? There are 8,700,000,000 devices connected to the internet and 4,300,000,000 IPv4 addys. How do you police it?

Just because transmission leaves the ISP at one speed does not mean it cannot be altered en route. You also have to consider that VOIP traffic and video gets different treatment than pure data. Always has. So theoretically, all data cannot be treated the same.

Then how are you going to ensure that the speed you are buying is what you are getting for every type of data sent? Isn't that what this is about? Allegations that speeds were being altered? Like I said, it can leave the ISP down the pipe at 25 MB but get altered along the way so it arrives at 20 or less. How do you monitor that? A simple speed test on the user end means nothing insofar as absolute proof of anything.

Here is exactly what I am talking about..............

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshstei...et-neutrality/

Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or any government, to use that access in a benign manner?

FCC has a test where ISP's give up their router configs and people's private data? Show me

==========================================================

If you recall, Netflix griped to the govt about Comcast 'slowing down' their content when in fact it turn out to be Netflix wanting Comcast to upgrade their equipment to accommodate them. Netflix did eventually have to pay for the upgrade they wanted and rightfully so. And like the tech in my link pointed out, you will need to monitor traffic in many places throughout the network to ensure that admins are not messing with protocols in order to slow traffic. You and I can download free network analyzers and gather all kinds of data except the router configs which can be manipulated. I've run Nmap on certain sites and was able to get to the router but not into it.................because I didn't want to get busted The admin log on the other end would have recorded my IP and that's that! I guess i could have used a proxy and something like Tor but it wasn't that serious. Anyway, policing would not be easy pr cheap. And what would stop ISP's from putting in old equipment and sticking up Netflix later? Then they pass the charges down to us.

 

Well dang dude, I thought posting a 13 minute video was a lot. That was a ton of data to comb through.

First let me say, for full disclosure, I'm an engineer currently employed by an ISP. So I fully understand the amount of time and effort it would take for the federal government to fully enforce these measures, it would take 1000's of employees. That's why it will never happen. All this does is give companies a legal leg to stand on. So if they fell there content is being throttled they have an avenue to pursue.

 

Read my entire post, not just the first 2 sentences.

The Constitution set the fundamental parameters which govern the nation and the process for implementing those parameters. If those fundamental parameters are used as the metric for judging the validity of proposed legislation, then we would have much, much fewer laws on the books. The problem is that rather than using the original parameters as the metric, the legal and political system uses precedent and deference, each new law is judged based on the previous law, which is based on the that preceding law, etc. The system is blazing a new trail constantly, constantly revising the parameters which govern each new set of laws.

Kelo is the perfect example.

Read the posts.

 

You got it! That is the point most people do not understand. What it will take to effectively monitor traffic at critical junctures to police traffic flow per download speed compliance. No doubt it could be done but what are people willing to pay?

 

And rules are meant to control, just as traffic laws control traffic. It is not so much what is being regulated but who is doing the regulating, and the secrecy behind it.

 

I've pretty clearly already made the point that the pro net neutrality folks don't know what the debate is about since no one knows what exactly the secret regulations cover. Instead I've heard hopes and dreams.

 

The majority of the FCC doesn't know what the debate is about?

My (surely inadequate and incorrect) understanding is that ISP's can set up priority channels for preferred customers. I don't know whether we're talking about different physical cables (like fiber optic to the business), or different clock rates to different customers, or simply a matter of prioritizing ethernet packets so that customers who pay for the faster service get first priority to use the lines. I have this vague picture of a toll highway that has two lanes, one for cars and trucks, and one for horses and buggies. The horse and buggy lane is a LOT cheaper. And I picture that if the toll for everyone USED to be $2, now the horse and buggy lane is $2 and the car lane is $20.

I remember the days when computer manufacturers competed on the basis of CPU speed, and there was a megahertz war and then a gigahertz war. You don't see that anymore. Yes, fire-breathing video processes still compete on performance for dedicated real-time gamers, but today who really knows or cares whether an AMD A10 processor is faster or slower than an Intel I5?

The reason the sheer number crunching speed is no longer the selling point, is because (1) few people need that kind of teraflop power for anything they do; and (2) the throttling speed for PCs today is bandwidth across the net. Most PC CPUs today spend most of their time doing the "busy wait" for ethernet packets to be sent out or arrive back. The world's fastest supercomputer can't order from Amazon any faster than the slowest tablet.

So I think it would be valuable for most everyone if the internet were an order of magnitude faster. The technology certainly exists - the cables, the routers, the xmit and receive silicon, it's all there. All that's holding it up is the cost and logistics of restringing new cabling. The thought of the infrastructure being there but priced beyond my means in order to give companies with big pockets a competitive advantage, doesn't much appeal to me.

 

this is very good news....

 

I'm not sure I understand the process involved. Seems to me that the first thing it would take, would be for a business to be presented with tiered pricing. You want faster access, you can get it for a price, right? And that would be prima facie evidence that service is not neutral. IF those paying for the faster access are getting it, then the provider is violating the neutrality. And if they are NOT getting facter access, then the provider is engaged in fraud.

This scenario wouldn't require extensive real-time monitoring at a low level. It would require a fairly simple speed measurement.

 

The majority of the FCC? What in the world are you talking about? No one doubts that the FCC commissioners know what's in the super secret regulations. They wrote it.

Yes, it would be great if the internet were an order of magnitude faster, but that, as far as I know, has nothing to do with the proposed regulations. I would file this in your fantasy hope chest.

 

sorry you are wrong.

 

OK. You wrote "the pro net neutrality folks don't know what the debate is about since no one knows what exactly the secret regulations cover." I assumed "no one" meant "no one." How silly of me.

I read in my local paper that maybe a dozen test cities are being rewired with the fastest fiber optic cable, including the last 100 feet. The equipment to shove data at suitable speeds is already in place, or is being installed.

I also read that some internet providers were lobbying for "fast lanes", available for higher prices. I didn't find out where the extra speed came from. If it's not from the hardware, then the term "fast lane" becomes more relative - it means "faster than those we slow down unless they pay more."

 

I was referring to to the pro neutrality folks on this forum, not the FCC commissioners who actually drafted the regulations. If you thought I meant the people who wrote the regs didn't know what was in it then yes, it was very silly of you.

And net neutrality caused cities to be rewired with the fastest fiber optics?

 

Of course not. I have been reading about "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" and I didn't know whether this referred to the physical capabilities of the infrastructure, or some sort of ISP internal manipulation. Do you know?

 

One more time........how do you prove that it is the ISP messing with the speeds unless you monitor damn near every router in the system? Everyone keeps saying 'just check the download speed'. Well, the ISP can put 25 MB in the pipeline at their end and it could turn into 15 by the time you get it. So now what???

 

How about the tiered pricing, nominally tied to performance? You seem to be saying that if the non-neutrality is advertised as a feature, that might not count because the ISP might be cheating. And even if the ISP is actually selling non-neutrality (illegally, I presume), and doing all they can to BE non-neutral on their end, we can't be sure because we can't predict the paths that the packets will take.

And this still doesn't make sense to me. If (let's say) murder is against the law, but I hire myself out as a killer nonetheless, is this unenforceable because I haven't killed anyone yet? That's not right, because the very act of me taking money to kill someone is illegal, and enforceable. And let's say that I ATTEMPT to kill the target person, but my attempt fails -- say I shoot and miss. You are NOW claiming this illegal deed is unenforceable, because you can't be sure what I was actually shooting at!

So I don't understand your point. If the ISP is offering non-neutrality that's illegal even if he can't deliver.

As for measuring download speed, this seems statistically feasible. Sure, the actual speed can't be guaranteed every time. But if you are paying for higher speed, you'll probably want to know whether you are usually getting it. So you buy a "slow track" and a "fast track" account, and you grab a few hundred gigabytes through each one each day for a month. If by that time the higher speed isn't showing up, I'd regard this as dispositive.

 

People claiming that the fcc labeling broad band internet as a utility is goign to some how mean a censored internet. How? Explain how this will lead to censorship?

Oh here's some food for thought to. This will actually lead to faster internet speeds. Why? Because as a bonus for this broad band internet as been reclassified as having a speed of at least 25 mb/s.

Considering that At&T has been selling 6mb/s DSL as broadband for a long time now...its going to be an improvement.