FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: Why He's Rejecting Net Neutrality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28
Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
171–180 of 469 posts
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're correct to ask these questions. The truth is that the entire motivation behind Net Neutrality is predicated on hypothetical behavior by an ISP that nobody has ever actually observed in reality for the exact reasons you describe.
ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is. Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be done more easily through net neutrality. Not sure.
Heavier regulations usually favor established players who can engage in regulatory capture, to shape the new rules to prevent future competition from smaller companies and firms that don't even exist yet. Often times they cloak this motivation with justifications that sound uncontroversial and difficult to object to.
I don't know specifically what the real goal is here with Net Neutrality, but that's the sort of thing that happens in other industries all the time. Often in terms of "safety" or "helping the environment."
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#173Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#174I don't understand the logic of ISP's throttling certain sites based on the traffic to those sites. As a consumer on ISP's last mile lines, I make a series of TCP requests and I expect responses. Fill my pipes with those responses as best you can and charge me for the privilege. If you're not making enough money on that, charge me more for the bandwidth. Market-wise, why would an ISP anything else than fill my pipe w…
Maximum throughput and quality of service are not their goals. They want as many people as possible paying for service on a line they paid $X to install. And they get this by being able to throttle their user's traffic in order to allow as many people to use the same line as possible.
What you're saying is basically the same as the "unlimited" argument in terms of internet access or even cell phone plans. You don't have a personal internet connection just for you that you can use in an unlimited way. The internet line run to your neighborhood is essentially zero sum. If you take a huge chunk of the bandwidth, then other paying customers get less. Charging you more doesn't help unless you fund entirely new network lines and installation. They want everyone to have an equal size of the pie. You can't have a dozen households sharing a connection to the internet and all be streaming netflix in 4k. There simply isn't the infrastructure to support that right now, in most places. No matter how much you're willing to pay.
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#175Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#176Since then, the provision of connectivity has consolidated among only a few very large companies, which among them have strongly oligopolic power to enforce whatever conditions they please upon their customers, both residential and commercial.
In the late-1990s, early-2000s environment of healthy competition among Internet service providers, utility-style regulation of ISPs, such as that here under consideration of repeal, was not a necessary measure.
However, in the current strongly oligopolic environment, only the regulatory power of the United States Government can continue to provide and enforce sufficient oversight to maintain a semblance of free market behavior.
Internet-powered entrepreneurship greatly benefits the US economy. The small, and occasionally large, businesses thus created have an outsized economic impact in terms of taxes paid and jobs created. Absent a true free market, or even the regulatory semblance of one, for Internet connectivity, these businesses may well find themselves severely hampered in their ability to earn revenue, with concomitant negative effect on their ability to contribute to our economy.
As such, I must strongly urge the new regulatory regime proposed in this filing not be adopted.
I thank you very kindly for your time and your consideration, and trust that you will decide in that fashion which you regard to best serve the interests of your constituents and of the nation which you serve.
(Also, the "Battle for the Net" folks would have done well to hire a UX designer - or perhaps to hire a different one. The lack of any clear confirmation that one's message has been sent fails to inspire confidence. Perhaps there's an email confirmation that has yet to arrive, but...)
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love how Ajit keeps saying 'it does not happen' where traffic is limited or blocked. It was limited, we saw this by Comcast with Netflix back in 2014. This is what we are getting ready to get back into. I do not want to have an internet where the ISP can hold me (the consumer) hostage to other companies to increase the ISPs bottom line. It isn't a good experience for the consumer, it isn't a good experience for pro…
> It was limited, we saw this by Comcast with Netflix back in 2014. This was due to a peering dispute with Cogent over link saturation and maintenance costs, not Comcast throttling Netflix traffic. Netflix ended up peering directly with Comcast in order to bypass Cogent's bottlenecked links. Neutrality regulations have jack-all to do with peering mutual maintenance agreements.
Can you please write more about this, or provide some links where I can learn more? I don't feel I have an understanding of how peering would change under proposed net neutrality rules.
Particularly, I am curious about the claim that "[Comcast was not throttling Netflix traffic]". Under the proposed FCC rules, would it be claimed that they were throttling in that 2014 situation? My understanding is that they would be seen as throttling, and I see that as a problematic outcome because Comcast loses significant bargaining power and essentially is forced to eat losses whenever a link becomes saturated... I think I read that the FCC would step in and mediate such talks, which is even crazier.
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this idea because I read too much cyberpunk. Why doesn't Twitter flex its muscle and cause a national crisis by tweeting "watch out China, nukes are coming" from Donald Trump's Twitter? That ruins trust in the platform, but what if they just banned the US president's account for TOS or something? Enormous amount of power. What if Musk's first ship to Mars had a hidden Railgun on it? "Anybody else that wants to…
Technically, the US President holds the power to end life on Earth should he so desire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no safeguard in place that could prevent such a course of action if it were attempted. Even Comcast's power seems rather pitiful in comparison.
Re: Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help Preserve the Open Internet
#179This has been the weakest day of action I could imagine. I thought sites were going to be throttled. Turns out its just some color changes and, oh, reddit has a fancy "slow-loading" gif for their website name. A real wake-up call!
This is exactly what I thought. Went to reddit.com...where's the Net Neutrality protest? Oh I just realized they made their logo a gif that looks like it loads slow...and they made a post... Went to google.com...the doodle is unrelated and I saw nothing about net neutrality on the site... Went to mozilla.org and I see absolutely nothing about it. I feel like I must be missing something here. Hackernews...looks the sa…