Why won't the opponents of net neutrality do the same thing they did last time and just buy comments from ad-tech companies? Most comments last time (even the ones obviously programmatically added) were legit. Shell companies were created, those companies would buy "leads" from ad-tech companies. Those "leads" were names/emails of people who checked a box saying "I'm okay if you use my name and email to comment on th…
Why would adtech companies buy anti-net-neutrality comments? They are some of the biggest proponents of it because they don't want ISPs trying to charge them for transit to their users.
I believe the parent comment was saying that AdTech companies were selling peoples' identities to use for fake comments on the FCC website (to, presumably, Comcast/Verizon/etc)
Where are these fast lanes? I believe you of course, but how do I know these exist like you say?
Netflix is probably the most relatable case study on what fast lanes look like, because it is Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub, that in many cases must compete with the exact same content the telco is now serving. (Side note: one more good reason for Netflix to be in the content creation game) Netflix gets to pay whatever rate to get pri…
> Netflix that pays whatever rate the teleco thinks it can insist on in order to install their CDN in your ISPs hub
No, that’s not a fast lane nor would be stopped by NN. You just explained that Netflix made an investment to get CDNs where they would be effective.
So, I’m still curious to know where these priority traffic fast lanes are.
> You are filing a document into an official FCC proceeding. All information submitted, including names and addresses, will be publicly available via the web.
Why do they need my address at all? And worse, why do they need to make the email and physical address public?
A lot of people agree that the problems that net neutrality regulations try to solve are caused by local, unimpeachable telecom monopolies. The economics of having a bunch of competing infrastructure make no sense. As much as I generally dislike regulation, I welcomed Title II classification because regulations are an effective answer answer to an abusive monopoly. However, I think another overall approach would be j…
I disagree. Local loop un-bundling does not solve the problem. You are still back to the same situation. A single pipe can only handle so many providers, thus limit local competition to 2 or 3 providers. So either all will collude, or the one with the deeper pockets will under-price the other ones until they go out of business. (sure you can add more "regulation", but this just throwing duct tape on a broken system)…
> side-note: Elon Musk's Starlink might change the economic game
It could also make the situation worse, if everyone changes to starlink and Starlink becomes a national or global monopoly ISP.
FYI: The deadline for comments is March 30, and the deadline for reply comments is April 29, (though it's not clear what the difference between comments and reply comments is). The FCC document (in all its legalistic glory) can be seen here: [1] And you can comment here: [2] [1] - https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-168A1.pdf [2] - https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/express
Thanks for that, my comment was: Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the networ…
I went with something a little different:
It is completely inappropriate for Internet Service Providers to apply different traffic policies to legitimate use cases. All legitimate use cases of the service by the end user shall be given equal access rights. Restore the Title II designation for ISPs, or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you your power.
It’s been over two years since Net Neutrality was repealed. I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about how the internet was going to be ruined by throttling, paid “fast lanes”, etc. Have any of these things happened? Or did that turn out to mostly be fear-mongering?
One obvious thing to point at is the cell networks that don't count one or more streaming services against your data limit. If you are a startup in that space, it's pretty hard to compete against bigger companies that have made deals with the cell providers.
I clicked on your second link and it took a while to load. Not wanting to seem like I'm putting on a tinfoil hat but what if the ISP's actually throttle the speeds to this specific site. Nah, they wouldn't do anything like that...
Despite your “joke”... no, there are exceptionally few instances of ISPs selectively throttling. The best example was a small carrier that the FCC slapped with a fine - before Net Neutrality rules existed.
Fast.com is an example where ISPs actively throttle it.
I ran across an old article that might help you craft a comment. "How to write a meaningful FCC comment supporting net neutrality"[0]. I used several of the tips on there and I think my comment was pretty good.
Thanks for that, my comment was: Just as the commission has always held it was the responsibility and duty of all users of a particular part of the spectrum from intentionally or unintentionally interfering with any other legitimate users, the commission should make rulings that require that providers of Internet service (ISPs) shall not intentionally or unintentionally interfere with any legitimate use of the networ…
I went with something a little different: It is completely inappropriate for Internet Service Providers to apply different traffic policies to legitimate use cases. All legitimate use cases of the service by the end user shall be given equal access rights. Restore the Title II designation for ISPs, or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you…
>or face the risk of a cunning and dedicated demographic working toward the destruction of the institutions that give you your power.
Did you elaborate on this at all, or do you intend to make the FCC (and us) guess?
Exactly. This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".
It always seemed somewhat opposite to me - that opposition to net neutrality consists of a non-negligible percent of people acting only against something perceived to be liberal.
The opposition comes from those who know and understand the free market and trust it to more justly and efficiently allocate and grow bandwidth resources better than an army of bueracrats trying to master plan technology infrastructure with century old regulations. Net neutrality is disingenuously named and intentionally misleading. There is no potato nuetrality - no one expects a grocer to sell 12 potatoes for the price of 6. Likewise, no one should expect video providers to pay the same for bandwidth as bloggers. All content providers and customers should pay for the bandwidth they use. Use a lot, pay a lot. Use a little pay a little. Bandwidth hogs (e.g., video providers like Netflix and YouTube) and their customers should not be subsidized by heavy handed, onerous, and cumbersome regulations that spread the cost of their bandwidth use on all users. Netflix, YouTube, etc. should not be subsidized by mind numbing regulations that are difficult to administer, difficult to interpret and comply with, invite litigation and divorce price from cost. Put the cost on, and adjust the price as appropriate, to the actual use. The result is more efficient pricing, better bandwidth allocation, and more transparency without the need for government interference, lawyers, and decades worth of litigation. Much better internet piping and bandwidth allocation will result.