AVSIG: Net Neutrality wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> Hardware/Software

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Reams Goodloe
Top Gun


Reged: 05/07/04
Posts: 2582
Loc: Kent, Washington
Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445238 - 11/24/17 09:59 PM

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 -

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:48 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445267 - 11/26/17 12:13 AM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Net Neutrality [Re: Reams Goodloe]
      #445268 - 11/26/17 04:14 AM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Net Neutrality [Re: Bill Bridges - 9S1]
      #445274 - 11/26/17 01:05 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bill Bridges - 9S1
Top Gun


Reged: 05/17/04
Posts: 6008
Loc: 9S1
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445275 - 11/26/17 01:27 PM

Quote:



"arbitrary and capricious"




One of my favorite legal terms. :)

Bill

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:49 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Net Neutrality [Re: Bill Bridges - 9S1]
      #445276 - 11/26/17 01:49 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Net Neutrality [Re: Russell Holton]
      #445280 - 11/26/17 02:30 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Reams Goodloe
Top Gun


Reged: 05/07/04
Posts: 2582
Loc: Kent, Washington
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445286 - 11/26/17 04:57 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Dubner
Super Imperial Member


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 4759
Loc: Extreme Upper West Side
Net Neutrality [Re: Bill Bridges - 9S1]
      #445289 - 11/26/17 05:28 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:51 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Bob Dubner
Super Imperial Member


Reged: 08/31/01
Posts: 4759
Loc: Extreme Upper West Side
Net Neutrality [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #445290 - 11/26/17 05:28 PM

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.

Edited by Mike Overly (11/27/17 08:51 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 111 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 7781

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum