Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/22/17 11:09 PM
Net Neutrality

Now that the industry shill running the FCC seems hellbent on blowing up net neutrality, I think VPNs are going to get a lot more popular. Somebody needs to come up with a simpler way to build a high-speed VPN router, though: I'd like to run my whole house network behind one, but the speed penalty is horrendous. I have an Asus 5300 router that can be configured to run OpenVPN, but when I configured it, I only got 40 to 50mb speeds. Since I have gigabit service via fiber to the house, that's a pathetic waste of capacity.

Running the VPN client on each PC/iPad works faster, but is unnecessarily complex and doesn't cover everything like a single VPN connection between house and world would. Apparently the problem is that normal router processors are too slow to keep up with all the encryption needed at high data rates. So...plan B is to basically make an old PC with more processing capability into a stand-alone router, but all the explanations of how to do that launch off into Linux-blather real fast so it's going to take some figuring...


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/22/17 11:40 PM
Net Neutrality

A quick hunt turned up Four Ways to Transform That Old PC Into a Powerful Router. But yeah, you'll earn serious geek cred for doing that.

Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/23/17 01:22 AM
Net Neutrality

Yeah, that’s where I got to - but they sure don’t make it easy!

Terry Carraway
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 09:36 AM
Net Neutrality

Have you looked at Strong VPN offerings?

I use the software version a lot, based on recommendations from one of our IT guys in Oman. When I was there, I needed to get one up and running, as Oman blocks ALL VOIP connections.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 12:40 PM
Net Neutrality

Yes, we have StrongDNS for some expat TV watching. Works great.

I'm currently using IPVanish VPN client software on my own PC and iPad. That results in tolerable speeds, but what I'd really like to do is leave the individual devices alone and run the VPN service as a buffer between the whole house network and AT&T. The Asus router I'm using is pretty high-end for their non-commercial product line and will indeed act as an OpenVPN client for various VPN services, but the processor isn't fast enough to keep up with the 1Gb data rate on our U-Verse fiber link. So...if I set up OpenVPN on the router, the data rate in/out of the house drops to 40-50mb instead of 900-950ish.

As I understand it, that's largely because routers don't have great processors. Theoretically, it's possible to repurpose a PC as a router using open-source software and reduce or eliminate that computational bottleneck - at least on the user end. I still have no idea whether the VPN server would be able to hold up their end of the deal even if I could encrypt full data rate: they have to be able to catch as fast as I can pitch to make it worthwhile.

Of course, if Mr. Pai at the FCC has his way, perhaps the "free market" solutions he's so fond of will result in hardware companies building better VPN routers for the peons. There may be some Cisco or other commercial-grade product out there that will do it, but so far they appear to be set up for more of a corporate-type setup where the company puts matching equipment at each end to manage an in-house network.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/24/17 03:01 PM
Net Neutrality

I think before getting to far down the "VPN everything" rabbit hole, one might define what the specific concern is.

If we're talking about someone eavesdropping on content, https goes a long way. It won't hide who you're talking to, but it will hide the "what".


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 04:08 PM
Net Neutrality

I'm thinking down the road to the wonderful world of non-neutral net, which I find annoying in the extreme. The less opportunity I give AT&T to mess with my data stream, the better. VPN also helps minimize data mining and all that other fun stuff.

Time to go yell at the kids to get off my lawn.


Bill Bridges - 9S1
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 05:10 PM
Net Neutrality

Quote:

I'm thinking down the road to the wonderful world of non-neutral net, which I find annoying in the extreme.





Scott,

I have no opinion on the net neutrality issue. It's only been since 2015? I haven't noticed any difference, but then again I get my internet off a water tower two cities over. :))

Bill


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/24/17 06:37 PM
Net Neutrality

To me honest, I'm not sure what to think about Net Neutrality. On one hand, you want a properly managed network. That is, you want things like streaming media to be prioritized over less time-sensitive stuff. Otherwise, services like VOIP and streaming video dies. And frankly, the ISP would love that. Because their offerings run in a different channel separate from the "internet" they deliver to the home. And since management is a form of favoritism, then turning that off is a win for the ISPs.

On the other hand, I understand that Netflix has their own network connection to many cable head-end offices. I think that's a good thing. Netflix users are getting the service they need to work, and non-subscribers are not paying for it. I call that a win-win.

That's not to say I don't have concerns. But so far, I've not seen anything that needs government intervention. Right now, it's become such a hot issue, I can't see where the fire is for all the political smoke.


John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 08:38 PM
Net Neutrality

Quote:


I have no opinion on the net neutrality issue. It's only been since 2015?




As I understand it, the ruling about Net Neutrality happened in 2015, but it was more of a preemptive rule, to keep the big ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) from starting to charge different rates to get to different sites/services.

To date, no one has done such a thing, which is why you would not have noticed anything.


Reams Goodloe
(Top Gun)
11/24/17 09:59 PM
Net Neutrality

Russell -

Take a look at this...

https://www.wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/

Note the links - in the underlined in BLUE words - to the proposed rules.

- Reams -


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 12:13 AM
Net Neutrality

The underlying issue is that the nature of the business is changing. When all ISPs did was shift data without much caring about the source, they didn't have much incentive to monkey with it. The basis for competition was how well they moved the bits. But now that they're starting to become content providers as well, they have a commercial incentive to advantage their own content and disadvantage everyone else's. Or they could slow popular sites down to 10% rate unless you pay extra for full speed. Or they could hold sites hostage for any other reason that suits them - and with Mr. Pai-the-former-Verizon-lawyer's "light touch regulation", there isn't a darn thing you can do about it. All the ISPs have to do to avoid the FTC is disclose how they're messing with the customers: nothing "false and misleading" about that, so it leaves the FTC pretty toothless.

Well, then. If you don't like your ISP, use your "free market" ability to change to another one. Oops - 60% of the country has zero or one choice in high-speed internet. Even if you have two, with this scheme you'd probably just end up with a different provider imposing their own commercial interests on you. Maybe you'd like their choices better, maybe not.

The ISPs also want a cut of the Google/FB ad business by monitoring your traffic and pushing their own stuff at you. If Pai had been around during the Ma Bell days, he would have been in favor of them listening to your phone calls and playing tastefully selected ads in the background. Talking to your sister about your terminally ill mom? Well, here - how about an ad for a funeral home? Need a discount code?

All I want out of an ISP is a dumb pipe connecting me to internet service providers of my choice at whatever rate I'm paying for. No ads, no monitoring, no favoring one site over another, no nuttin. I give you money, you hook me up. For some reason, that's too much for the current FCC Republicans to allow. They want to "fix" it.

It ain't broke.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/26/17 04:14 AM
Net Neutrality

Quote:

Russell -

Take a look at this...

https://www.wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/

Note the links - in the underlined in BLUE words - to the proposed rules.




The rules are 210 pages, and the summary in Wired sounds too much like the commentary I hear when any bill is proposed - it's hard to tell the spin from fact.

To start with, collective bandwidth is finite. It takes money to increase it. So I consider limits based on bandwidth a valid pricing model.

The problem is to try and explain that in a way that the customer understands. Limiting video based on resolution seems like a good way to do that, even if some higher-resolution stuff with aggressive compression takes less bandwidth than lower-resolution stuff.

However, it's possible that even if the ISP treats all sources of a particular protocol the same, someone is likely to complain because their technological advantage is to deliver a particular service using a different protocol - and because of the rules, they feel discriminated against.

I'd expect any slowing down of a particular site would be met with a great deal of pushback from the general public, so I think that's unlikely.

The part that raises an eyebrow is where favored partners are given exemptions from data rates - but that's been ruled acceptable under the current rules. So, that should be off-limits unless new rules are being discussed.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 01:05 PM
Net Neutrality

Unfortunately, a LOT of people have no opinion on net neutrality because they've never gotten any other kind of service and can't envision what might happen without it.

The first clue about whether dropping neutrality rules is a good thing or not is that absolutely no one other than ISPs, lobbyists, trade associations and "all regulation is bad" types seem to think it's a good idea. After filtering through the spambot-generated traffic, the unique public comments sent to the FCC were estimated 98.5% in favor of retaining the existing rules.

So naturally, the proposed change is expected to be approved. There's an argument to be made for "arbitrary and capricious", so I expect there will be subsequent litigation.


Bill Bridges - 9S1
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 01:27 PM
Net Neutrality

Quote:



"arbitrary and capricious"




One of my favorite legal terms. :)

Bill


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 01:49 PM
Net Neutrality

Yes, I think there is a course on "Flowery Language" in the first year of law school.

But as it turns out, regulatory agencies can't just change their minds without good reason and Pai hasn't made much of a case for why this is needed. One of his biggest claims was that ISPs cut investment in network upgrades following the 2014 proposed rulemaking that established neutrality requirements. Alas, the ISP annual reports to stockholders all said otherwise. He's pushing a non-solution to a non-problem.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 02:30 PM
Net Neutrality

You're focusing on the twigs and missing the forest. Eliminating neutrality could seriously upend most people's concept of web access. It's about a lot more than bandwidth and protocols, and I really can't think of a thing about it that would be better for consumers.

Reams Goodloe
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 04:57 PM
Net Neutrality

Basically, the rule change says that your ISP isn't really an ISP, but instead, it is being redefined as an "Information Service". So, the ISP can do what it wants as to whether, and how, to provide any information to you - or whether or not to enable you to obtain access to certain types of information it may not want you to see, easily, or at all.

Kinda like the origins of the Great Chinese Firewall, in case you are not familiar with the "choke the content" principles as practiced in other countries.

The change basically reclassifies the ISPS to remove regulatory oversight as being a communications carrier. You no longer have a "dumb pipe" serving as your ISP, but a "we can give you what we want to give you" "information provider" service. Which may or may not work for you...

- Reams-







Federal Communications Commission
FCC-
CIRC1712
-04
3
We reverse this misguided and legally flawed approach and restore broadband Internet access service to its Title I information service classification. We find that reclassification as an information service best comports with the text and structure of the Act, Commission precedent, and our policy objectives. We
thus return to the approach to broadband Internet access service affirmed as reasonable by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
3
We also reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service and return to the Commission’s definition of “interconnected service” that existed prior to 2015. We determine that this light-
touch information service framework will promote investment and innovation better than applying costly and restrictive laws of a bygone era to broadband Internet access service.


Bob Dubner
(Super Imperial Member)
11/26/17 05:28 PM
Net Neutrality

One must be careful with "...arbitrary and capricious..."

Back in the mid 1990s my wife and I were active on Compuserve's education
forum, which basically was taken over by home schoolers. Many, not all,
homeschoolers are evangelical and other flavor Christians. The sysop team, a
husband and wife, were deeply religious.

They aroused my ire at one point by taking down some material and essentially
deciding a conflict in a way that suggested to me that they were siding with
the Christians and working against some people more secular in outlook. I
involved myself, making my arguments, and included the phrase "...arbitrary
and capricious...".

It sticks in my mind because a week later, I was the sysop of the edforum.


Bob Dubner
(Super Imperial Member)
11/26/17 05:28 PM
Net Neutrality

I've been quiet, here, but I just want to say that I agree with you
completely.

It is a basic truism that there is no such thing as morality in business. If
it's legal, then it can be done. If it is not legal, then it shouldn't be
done.

If an action can make a profit and enhance shareholder value, then a
corporation and its officers have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to
take that action.

So, if it's legal for Verizon to throttle access to Netflix, or charge more
for access to Netflix content, in order to make Verizon content packages look
more attractive, then they will do so. It might be sooner, it might be
later, but they will do it.

The only way to stop that kind of thing is to keep it illegal.

I am sorry to say that I am no longer flabbergasted at this administration's
willingness to try to force seven impossible things down my throat before
breakfast every morning. This is another one. How anybody can say, with a
straight face, that allowing one provider the ability to force a competitor
to pay more for service is somehow good for consumers, is almost beyond my
understanding.

But one thing they seem to believe in is the power of The Big Lie.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/26/17 10:49 PM
Net Neutrality

Quote:

The change basically reclassifies the ISPS to remove regulatory oversight as being a communications carrier. You no longer have a "dumb pipe" serving as your ISP, but a "we can give you what we want to give you" "information provider" service. Which may or may not work for you...




And such changes could cause grief for ISPs. IIRC, they've been shielded from some lawsuits because of their status as a "dumb pipe". With the reclassification, they could become liable for the sins of their customers. Things like illegal downloading of copyrighted content, etc.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/26/17 10:54 PM
Net Neutrality

Quote:

You're focusing on the twigs and missing the forest. Eliminating neutrality could seriously upend most people's concept of web access. It's about a lot more than bandwidth and protocols, and I really can't think of a thing about it that would be better for consumers.



My problem is that it's discussed in such generality that all I can see is an indistinct green color.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/26/17 11:07 PM
Net Neutrality

Yup. Whenever I hear some variation of, “You don’t need [some proposed rule] - we would never do that!”, I immediately start getting interested in how they’re going to pull it off. If they weren’t going to do it, they wouldn’t be spending megabucks fighting the rule.

Reams Goodloe
(Top Gun)
11/27/17 01:36 AM
Net Neutrality

>>With the reclassification, they could become liable for the sins of their customers<<<

Nah, not likely.
the DMCA safe harbor provisions would continue to apply.
17 USC 512.....

They would only get caught if they originate the content - same as current law.. And would have no liability as long as their work is just transmission or transitory storage... ....and they don't modify the content...

- Reams-

..


Terry Carraway
(Top Gun)
11/27/17 08:39 AM
Net Neutrality

I thought that Strong had some hardware solutions. StrongVPN built into the router for better performance.

Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/27/17 11:46 AM
Re: Net Neutrality

Looks like they just re-flash consumer routers or configure them for their OpenVPN service in advance so the customer doesn't have to. I did send them a note asking about their "typical" throughput just to see what they say - it obviously "depends" on a lot of stuff outside their control, but if they're seeing rates substantially above the 40-50mb I was seeing, they might be worth a try. What's hard to tell when looking at a limited number of cases with the router is whether the main limitation is at my end or theirs. (I suspect mine, but I'm willing to be surprised.)

Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/27/17 11:58 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

And indeed, Strong tech support says 50mb or so is an “acceptable” throughput rate for VPN on a router...

Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/28/17 01:12 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Here's something to think about: Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

If nothing else, notice the different style of writing: it gets more into the details of how things work.


John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
(Top Gun)
11/28/17 11:10 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

Here's something to think about: Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

If nothing else, notice the different style of writing: it gets more into the details of how things work.




I'm not sure how his article received a title like that shown.

Google can afford to do what is doing -- in effect, placing itself near its customers. That is how Google and Netflix, etc., can get good, high speed access to their customers.

What the article ignores is that in the current state, the market (ie, Google's wallet) allows it to do what it is doing. No ISP is acting as a gatekeeper preventing anyone else from using the Internet. If the ISPs (either last-mile or transit) are allowed to influence the flow of traffic, the Googles of the world will be able to continue to do what they want, it is the small players who can't do what Google is doing who will suffer.

I've spent the bulk of my career either in the ISP or ISP-adjacent business. I don't want to see the ISPs able to arbitrarily restrict the flow of traffic across the Internet.

John


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/28/17 11:32 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

If the ISPs (either last-mile or transit) are allowed to influence the flow of traffic, the Googles of the world will be able to continue to do what they want, it is the small players who can't do what Google is doing who will suffer.




Worse, we end up like the local stations negotiating with the cable companies:

Stations: "Without us, you have no content. Pay us"
Cable: "Without us, you have no customers. Pay us."


Quote:

I don't want to see the ISPs able to arbitrarily restrict the flow of traffic across the Internet.



However, I think we do want the traffic managed for the good of all. For example, smooth streaming. I'm all for good management. I'm against favoring one company over another.

But one person's management is another's restriction. And I'm sure given time that someone will claim that prioritizing one protocol over another is a restriction against a company because that company runs a different protocol. (I'm just looking at how race/gender discrimination arguments have been framed by some in the past.)

I guess the best way to describe it is that I wast a ISP with good network management (protocol discrimination), but is content/owner neutral. What troubles me about the "net neutrality" side is that I'm unsure if what they're proposing is going to accomplish what I want or if it's going to lead to a unmanaged network (which I don't think any consumer wants).


John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 09:43 AM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:


I guess the best way to describe it is that I wast a ISP with good network management (protocol discrimination), but is content/owner neutral.




Absolutely agree. I spent some years getting very familiar with the detailed design and implementations of QoS (Quality of Service) prioritization of traffic based on on traffic type. Frankly, it is amazing that it can be tuned as well as it can be, but it helps greatly to control great swaths of the pathways so you can set the same standards throughout, so latency sensitive traffic (such as video and voice) can get the regular snippets of space it needs on a regularly recurring basis.





Quote:

What troubles me about the "net neutrality" side is that I'm unsure if what they're proposing is going to accomplish what I want or if it's going to lead to a unmanaged network (which I don't think any consumer wants).




And that is a very good question. I have not looked closely enough in the 2015 agreement to see what it says.

John


Gil Buettner [KAUW]
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 09:48 AM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

Worse, we end up like the local stations negotiating with the cable companies:

Stations: "Without us, you have no content. Pay us"
Cable: "Without us, you have no customers. Pay us."







I fought the retransmission battles over the years from the TV station side. It was ugly and still is.

For me, the fundamental unfairness was watching cable pay for other content such as ESPN and The Weather Channel, but because we were broadcasting our content over the air, they felt it was OK to take our signal and sell it to customers without compensation to us or our network.

Cable was not adding viewers for us. The signal was always there, free with an antenna. (And more and more these days, people are going back to free over-the-air programming which is also higher quality video.)

We knew that the majority of viewing on cable was going to the four major networks and to local stations for news, weather and sports.

It is only fair that we somehow get compensated for that content. The sad thing is... cable operators just add that amount to the customer's monthly bill.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality, I know.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/29/17 01:16 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

Cable was not adding viewers for us.




That would be market dependent. Where I live, I can only get one or two OTA. Partly because I live in an apartment, but partly because most of the TV stations moved their transmitters.

I'm pretty sure most people have given up their outdoor antennas in favor of using cable. So, without cable, the customer base would dramatically decline unless people decided to put up outdoor antennas again.


Quote:

For me, the fundamental unfairness was watching cable pay for other content such as ESPN and The Weather Channel, but because we were broadcasting our content over the air, they felt it was OK to take our signal and sell it to customers without compensation to us or our network.



Don't those channels provide advertising slots for the cable company to insert local ads? Do you know how that works out on the balance sheet between cost and income?


Quote:

This has nothing to do with net neutrality, I know.



Thread drift is tradition. <g>


Scott Dyer [HPN/NY]
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 01:43 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Millenials don't like cable, doing a lot of cord cutting. OTA TV is a tool in their arsenals, along with various streaming services.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z433e8/over-the-air-antennas-hdtv-cord-cutting


Gil Buettner [KAUW]
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 03:38 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:


Don't those channels provide advertising slots for the cable company to insert local ads? Do you know how that works out on the balance sheet between cost and income?







I don't really know but I suspect subscriber fees are more important than advertising revenue. Cable is charged a per-subscriber fee for ESPN, etc., and yes, they do get "avails" (jargon for time available for sale).

From my perspective, cable rates per commercial are incredibly low compared to broadcast, but also incredibly high when viewed - properly - based on "cost per thousand" of viewers.

There are many, many advertisers who are naïve and judge the value on the cost of a single commercial. They can't believe how cheap it is compared to broadcast TV.

There are ad agencies and informed advertisers who judge the value based on how many eyeballs that commercial will reach. They understand that cable is really far more expensive.

Cable operators know exactly how many subscribers they have, and base rates on that number. It is misleading, because the subscriber audience is spread across all of those channels. You would have to run your ads on many, many cable channels to come close to one ad on one television station. And not only many channels, but also on many different cable systems in a single TV market.

Yes, it is market dependent. If you are in a business that only needs to reach potential customers in one city, there are times when a targeted campaign on cable is worth it, especially if you have a narrow demographic and can buy the channel or channels that reaches that demo well.




Dave Siciliano (ADS)
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 03:40 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

I'm in a home in north Dallas. Almost all the transmission antennas are in far south Dallas. If I put up a normal antenna, I can get most of the free over air channels, but one of the networks is in a different location; so, one would need to have an antenna that changes direction. Even with that, a few have marginal reception where I am. So, my default is Dish.

Ray Tackett
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 03:44 PM
Net Neutrality

Here, in a major metro area, with a clear three-mile line of sight to the
local antenna farm, I get 79 OTA channels* and so don't pay my ISP to provide
TV -- just internet and phone,

Hanny streams her favorite cable-only programs to her iPad.


*The count includes the bandwidth splits, e.g. 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/29/17 05:09 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Nice. But my problem is terrain.
Add in the fact that in the conversion to digital, nearly all the stations switched from VHF to UHF, the signals don't travel like they used to. Hills kill any hope I have.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/29/17 07:55 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

I’m pretty sure the ISPs have been managing their networks for the last couple of years will no observable ill effect. Nobody expects them to go completely hands-off: I’m paying for good service, and that includes the associated engineering tasks. The excitement starts when the ISPs start “managing” for reasons other than good network hygiene...

Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
11/29/17 08:52 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

I’m pretty sure the ISPs have been managing their networks for the last couple of years will no observable ill effect.




Yeabut. Consider this: We want to strive to erase racism. But at the same time, we want to maintain a legal distinction between adults and convicted felons with the latter having fewer rights (such as not being able to possess a firearm).

What we don't want is rules that either directly, indirectly overturns that distinction because certain races are over-represented in the convicted felon group. We want to remove race-based discrimination, but not at the price of "discriminating" against convicted felons.

Likewise, we want our network to be politically neutral, but still have QOS. All it would take is a court case that finds QOS violates net neutrality and we'd be in a bind.

Ultimately, I think we all want the same results. It's just that given the fine distinction between "company neutral" and QOS, I'm far more leery about the competency of people drafting the laws to give that to us.


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
11/30/17 10:12 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

No one in network management world seems to think the existing rules are causing any legitimate issues, and the “improved” version seems to mainly be an ideological project. Usual flannel about “innovation”, etc...

Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
12/04/17 04:06 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

And now one of the tech writers I've come to like has weighed in:

Opinion: Net neutrality is a myth, and the FCC changes aren't what you think

"For the past week, I've been trying to get a handle on exactly what Chairman Pai is proposing, what that proposal would mean, and what would change.

"To that end, I've skipped past all the blog posts, all the well-meaning tech explainers, and all the forceful, yet sincere videos. I've gone straight to the source. I've been reading the law. The actual Code of Federal Regulations, and the actual documents that describe the changes proposed by the FCC."

"Strap in kids. The ride is about to get bumpy."


John O'Shaughnessy [FCM]
(Top Gun)
12/04/17 05:59 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

And now one of the tech writers I've come to like has weighed in:

Opinion: Net neutrality is a myth, and the FCC changes aren't what you think




Very interesting. Basically, he's saying that the proposed changes don't impact the current language about throttling/blocking/prioritizing, so therefore, people shouldn't be getting worked up.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
12/04/17 06:12 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

And the whole Title 1/Title 2 thing only applies to mobile networks, not your typical home/business wired network.

Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
12/05/17 04:20 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Well, that didn't last long.

Same author:

FCC revisited: Net neutrality changes are misleading and not benign, says Gewirtz


"There was a failure here. But, quite honestly, I'm not entirely sure whether it was a failure on my part to find the right primary source document or on the part of the government for not publishing their latest source document in the official location reserved for documents of this type."

"As a journalist, I'm seriously troubled that the newest FCC information, that should have been in the EDOCS system, was not only not indexed, it wasn't dated, and the document even lists itself as unofficial. I'm left feeling like this was a purposeful attempt by the FCC to seem transparent while being misleading, and it feels like I got snookered by it."

"Specifically, this new document proposes the following:

"Remove and delete in their entirety sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.5, 8.7, 8.9, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15,8.16, 8.17, 8.18, and 8.19.

"If this is, in fact, the new official FCC stance, then much of what in my previous analysis is now incorrect. If 8.5 No Blocking, 8.7 No Throttling, and 8.9 No Paid Prioritization, among the other internet freedom sections are removed, then many of the concerns of the net neutrality proponents are more than justified."


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
12/09/17 11:22 AM
Re: Net Neutrality

Pai is absolutely toxic: he's the equivalent of putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA.

And as I said before, as soon as some company expensively objects to rules against stuff they say they would never do, count on them doing it sooner or later.


Reams Goodloe
(Top Gun)
12/10/17 03:10 AM
Re: Net Neutrality

Here is the playbook for the 3-2 decision and aftermath litigation...

https://gizmodo.com/what-actually-happens-the-day-net-neutrality-is-repeale-1820813374

- Reams-


Scott Dunham (RDU)
(Top Gun)
12/10/17 12:53 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

My vote would be the DC Circuit, but we’ll see.

Slim chance of a Congressional resolution of disapproval, I guess: they only use that on things that help consumers.


Russell Holton
(AVSIG Member)
12/10/17 02:09 PM
Re: Net Neutrality

Quote:

Slim chance of a Congressional resolution of disapproval, I guess: they only use that on things that help consumers.




While congress seems tone-deaf to the desires of the population at large, I think they do respond to their own constituents. After all, they do want to be re-elected. They're just tone deaf to those outside of their district.

I think this more drastic change to the rules is something that crosses party lines.



Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum