ISPs Are Already Using The FCC's Planned Net Neutrality Repeal To Harm Consumers
from the somebody-is-killing-all-the-babysitters dept
So if you've been reading Techdirt, you know that the FCC's myopic assault on net neutrality is just a small part of a massive, paradigm-shifting handout to the uncompetitive telecom sector that could have a profoundly negative impact on competition, innovation, privacy, and consumer welfare for the next decade.
The government telecom industry's plan goes something like this: gut nearly all FCC oversight of giant ISPs (including the modest privacy protections killed earlier this year), then shovel any dwindling remaining authority to an FTC that lacks the authority or resources to actually protect competition, businesses and consumers. If any states get the crazy idea to step in and try to fill in the consumer protection gaps, the FCC (again, at Comcast and Verizon's lobbying behest) has clearly stated it will try and use federal authority to slap them down (so much for that dedication to "states rights" applied only when convenient).
You should, hopefully, see how this could pose problems for anybody other than Charter, Comcast, Verizon and AT&T. In fact, Charter lawyers this week are already providing us with a look at precisely what this is going to look like in practice.
You might recall that earlier this year, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Charter for effectively ripping off consumers. Among the numerous charges levied in the complaint (pdf) was the fact that Charter falsely advertised speeds it couldn't deliver, used all manner of misleading fees to jack up the cost of advertised services (something it's facing other lawsuits over), and may have manipulated peering point capacity to force content and transit operators into paying more money.
The complaint features Charter executives on e-mail indicating they manipulated congestion levels to trick SamKnows, a firm the FCC employs to track whether ISPs deliver the speeds they advertise (instead of, you know, fixing the problem by adding needed ports and capacity):
"Our Sam Knows scores are like watching a slow-motion train wreck. We need to get in front of this. One thing I think we may need to be prepared to do is just give more ports to Cogent during sweeps month [when FCC results are measured for purposes of the MBA report]. We don’t have to make any promises, we just have to make it work temporarily."
You might recall that when the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules indicated the FCC might take a closer look at such interconnection shenanigans, said interconnection fisticuffs magically ceased. And now, with the FCC poised to repeal net neutrality rules, Charter lawyers are busy arguing in court that this federal authority (which in reality is lobbyist-induced apathy) trumps any state attempts to protect consumers:
"Of particular relevance here, the Draft Order includes an extensive discussion of the interplay between federal and state law, including with respect to the transparency rule on which Charter has relied in arguing that federal law preempts the Attorney General’s allegations that Time Warner Cable made deceptive claims about its broadband speeds," writes Charter attorney Christopher Clark, from Latham & Watkins. "Consistent with the FCC’s statements in prior orders and enforcement advisories, the Draft Order 'conclude[s] that regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork of separate state and local requirements.'"
In other words, the FCC's handout to industry is already providing them with ammunition to dodge accountability for dodgy business practices on the state level as well. And again, this goes well beyond net neutrality -- it's a wholesale dismantling of oversight for some of the least-competitive and least ethical companies in America (if you need evidence of this, consult the Techdirt archives). Needless to say, Schneiderman's office disagrees with Charter's argument that its case should be derailed because the federal government no longer cares about consumer welfare:
"Spectrum-TWC failed to maintain enough network capacity in the form of interconnection ports to deliver this promised content to its subscribers without slowdowns, interruptions, and data loss," stated an opposition brief. "It effectively 'throttled' access to Netflix and other content providers by allowing the ports through which its network interconnects with data coming from those providers to degrade, causing slowdowns. Spectrum-TWC then extracted payments from those content providers as a condition for upgrading the ports As a result, Spectrum-TWC’s subscribers could not reliably access the content they were promised, and instead were subjected to the buffering, slowdowns and other interruptions in service that they had been assured they would not encounter."
Again, companies like Charter and Comcast are breathlessly promising that nothing will change in the wake of the net neutrality rules' repeal. But that's not only an obvious lie (why spend millions to repeal consumer protections you have no intention of abusing?), but it overshadows the fact that, again, this isn't just about net neutrality. It's about gutting oversight of these duopolies almost entirely on both the federal and state level, leaving few, if any agencies capable of holding these companies accountable the next time they try to abuse a lack of market competition.
In other words, if you thought behavior by giant cable companies like Comcast and Charter is obnoxious now, you likely haven't seen anything yet. Unless you're one of these folks that truly believes that removing all regulatory oversight of natural mono/duopolies magically fixes everything -- in which case your beliefs are about to be tested.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, eric schneiderman, fcc, net neutrality
Companies: charter, samknows
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's no testing of something divorced from reality ;)
Evidence the ISPs can't behave without proper regulation is smeared all over everywhere. You have to be willfully ignorant or under a pile of money to ignore it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Human nature? The hell is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More lies
TD You are just as bad as Ajit making up lies to advance your agenda. NN is hardly the only set of regulations on the books.
We are living under regulatory capture that you ASKED FOR and have been warned many times in the past about.
Of course there is not going to be anything fixed, you dont want it fixed, you want it all fucked up to keep people stuck in their Stockholm's syndrome where a bunch of corrupt politicians are asked to save your asses from a bunch of corrupt businesses.
You were warned, you laughed, now you deserve it! Hope you enjoy the bed you made for yourselves you idiots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
looking to have a witch hunt is that it? how sorry of a little human you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
We are just curious as to what region of the world you are from. Nothing more.
Unless you are claiming that you don't actually exist, then yes, we are looking to have a witch hunt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Is it really that important to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
I am also Native American as well, but do not live on Reservation but have Family that does.
Maybe I should tell you about how well the government lies... but that would be revealed with some history if you cared to look a little bit of it.
The question is... why are you asking for help from a liar that intends to mislead you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
And to anyone who thought that we just automatically shoot imbeciles in Texas, there's the proof that we don't. (although maybe we should)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
(although maybe we should, regulations won't let us)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Well, do what you gotta do mr brave man over the internet behind your anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Says the other one over the internet behind his anonymity.
That's rich.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
No, you’re just boring us all into comas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
This is why I keep telling you guys that you reap what you sow. Go ahead keep having a grand old time joking about having someone murdered!
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Why the blue-balled fuck did I need your permission to do that, again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Who said anything about murder (other than you, that is). Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. The comment was specifically about NOT breaking the law and pointing out how regulations protect even people like you. Did that cause too much cognitive dissonance in your little brain?
No. You've greatly revealed yours, once again. You keep projecting yourself onto others. You need help for that.
There's nothing wrong with calling you out on your bullshit. Deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
How's that network of friends who allow you to be an asshole working out for you now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
You question my intelligence, but turn around and ask the very agency that has been screwing you to save you.
Like I said... you deserve what you get!
Or... reaping what you have sown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Here's a reminder: non-Americans usually can't affect American policy or business. Unfortunately, American policy and business very frequently goes out of its way to affect non-Americans. That's why people take notice.
But you're too busy breathing the smell of your own shit to care, what with your head rammed up your ass in a bid to taste your own chyme.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Get a brain morans!
hold ma beer - watch this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More lies
Unfortunately wiLLie... I look over on the other side of the bed and you are there. [Shudders]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More lies
I am saying NN is shiny bauble distracting you idiots. And its working.
Asking for NN means you WANT a monopoly.
We need to remove the regulations protecting big business not waste time with trying to concoct consumer protections that are not going to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
How do you make that out, as it is about preventing ISPs deciding what sites their users can connect to. That claim is like saying that regulations about car construction will turn car manufacture into a monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
NN is a distraction, we need to break the monopolies and allow the consumers to decide which ISP's they want to use. The FCC has proven that it does not serve in the interests of the consumers so it should be abolished to set an example.
Free-Market DOES work, but the current regulations PREVENT that. NN does NOT remove the regulations keeping the telco monopoly in force, therefore it's NOT going to be a solution.
I have said it many times, you cannot obtain relief from an agency that is in regulatory capture mode. It is a wasted effort. Go and look at reddit at all of the bought off politcians. That front makes far more sense to try than the give us NN corruption front here at TD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
And to add a caveat. I will not be butt hurt at all if NN remains. If we KEEP the rules that allow for the Telco's to keep their monopolies then NN WILL BE NECESSARY, which is why I said. Voting for NN means voting for monopoly. I don't want monopolies that are enforced though regulation like they are now.
There is a LOT to go through so I will just provide a couple of highlights.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for -their-own-net-neutrality-laws/
I consider this far more important to defeat the FCC on than NN. The FCC is going to prevent states from protecting its citizens and that is just wrong on so many levels.
We NEED more of this!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/20/the-justice-department-just-sued-a tt-to-block-its-85-billion-bid-for-time-warner/
So far only the DOJ has been any protection for the consumers where monopolies are concerned. The FCC and FTC have been poor stewards of advancing consumer protections.
Here is a lawsuit by ATT against Google
https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/at-t-sues-louisville-ky-to-block-google-fiber-from-gaini ng-pole-access
Here is Comcast suing a city.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcast-fcc-high-speed-internet-gigabit
"A fter winning in court, Chattanooga built its own high-speed offering, but was prevented from expanding this offering to neighboring areas by state laws. Earlier this year, the FCC voted to overturn those restrictions."
The FCC helped defeat the laws of the State which is WHERE the FCC needs to be focused. Right now with Ajit Pai in power I have low faith that he will serve our interests, and I have no faith that NN will be enforced if they are still voted to remain. NN did not stop my connection to hulu and netflix from being throttled.
NN did not stop my ISP from being the only one that operated in my area. NN did not stop the multiple states, cities, and municipalities from allowing Telco's from Buying their elected officials off.
Recently the FCC voted to undo essential rules protecting from Monopolies.
https://psmag.com/economics/fcc-votes-to-eliminate-anti-monopoly-media-rules
We should be fighting the FCC on these before NN.
It is really hard to keep this short, because it is quickly getting all over the place.
In short... the regulations be they at the Federal, State, or Local levels that allow the ISP's to have a monopoly where they are able to SUE new competitors in court should be destroyed.
So yea, this fight is not just against the FCC either.
NN is such a small part of all of this that it is practically a waste of time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
I'm still not buying the NN = monopoly, given properly applied the rules are merely meant to prevent the more blatant abuse of customers, so I fail to see how they support monopolies.
I'd likewise argue that ideally network neutrality rules should be a 'waste of time' because they aren't needed, but as a stopgap measure they unfortunately are, even if the current tool in charge of the FCC means they aren't likely to be used while he's around.
I'm not aware of anyone offhand that figured that they were the best solution, or that they would solve the problem on their own, rather the general idea seemed/seems to be that they are better than nothing and that they are meant to keep things at least somewhat sane while the underlying problem of no real competition is addressed.
In general most people here will probably agree that unnecessary regulations, in particular ones artificially propping up businesses should be trimmed as much as possible if not scrapped. Where the differences come into play is what is considered 'necessary', what if anything to replace them with and so on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
That is fine. I work off the psychology it creates with people to lead to my conclusions. NN is the idea that a politician will save me from corrupt business. This leads to the psychology that we need to use regulation to fight big business. I believe that psychology is bad and indirectly fast tracks us to monopoly.
Why? Because if you are a politician... would you want to regulation 100 businesses or make it easy on yourself and just regulate 1? That is how the monopolies are created... they become more convenient to regulate than a free market. Then you have the corruption angle where businesses bribe them for regulations that benefit them, or a little turning of the cheek when a business is breaking regs.
"In general most people here will probably agree that unnecessary regulations, in particular ones artificially propping up businesses should be trimmed as much as possible if not scrapped."
I agree with you here. The pro NN crowds hearts are in the right place... the problem is that their brains are not. NN is just a carrot on a stick to keep us blind and running a certain direction as the ISP's sit right on our backs getting a free ride and keeping us distracted!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Thank you!
"If NN is removed, it will be worse, that is pretty much fact."
My experience with the past few years under NN has not made my ISP bills or options any different. I still have the same quality connection to Hulu and Netflix I have always had. I still get buffering from time to time, and my connection is throttled in multiple ways and I still have various ports blocked by default. I use my upload as well and when I am sharing my files with friend for game mods I create my 10meg upload is dial up. Another friend can start a download and they get the exact same speed the other friend gets. They all get 192Kbps per second now matter how many are downloading at once. NN didn't do jack for me.
"Now it might eventually lead to an internet revolution, and lead us into the golden age of internet but that is an unknown."
You might be right, but history shows that it is very unlikely under just these kinds of rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
If you think “paid prioritization” or ISPs telling you which sites you can and cannot use without paying to “upgrade” your service is going to change your bills or your options in any way that does not metaphorically bend you over and fuck you up the ass with no lube, you underestimate how fast and how hard the major telcos will fuck you. I mean, do you want competition in the telco industry to be based on, say, whether you can access Netflix without having to pay an extra fee on top of your existing ISP access fee and the Netflix subscription fee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
I am telling you that NN is not going to change it. You say it will and a whole bunch of clueless folks say the same.
I am telling you, then when NN was instituted, my ISP did not change anything. Still saw the same limits, still read the same news stories about tracking,targeting, and advertising, I still saw ISP's charging more and offering less, and I saw the FCC still rubbing elbows and tricking folks like you, by telling you that they care while doing something else when they took action.
With or Without NN, we are going to be screwed either way. You are chasing a carrot on a stick!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
And you are correct because ...... (fill in blank here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
But Title II still did not stop all the businesses bound by it to still over charge consumers, stuff their bills and neither did it stop them from obtaining monopolies.
The FCC is on record as intending to manage them as Monopolies too. I don't want regulation to grant monopolies to businesses and then regulate them to protect consumers, I want them to block monopolies. If you want to pile on the NN rules AFTER that... then great! But at that point I don't think they will be even necessary.
When the internet first started the rush was to get everyone interconnected as possible to form the WWW. There were several networks only owned by disparate ISP's and not everyone was able to get on the WWW at first. Sure that might have just been an anomaly but any ISP not working towards access to the WWW was losing customers to ISP that could dial into ISP's that did provide that access.
You see, when people used dial up to connect to the internet we HAD a Free Market for the internet and it directly prevented the telco's from locking shit down.
Now that the ISP's are essentially becoming the access point at the wire level AND content owners they can overcome many of these laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
1. Nationalize the local loop and reduce the ISPs to "over the top" providers (municipal broadband is this on a small scale)
2. Force infrastructure-owning ISPs to allow anyone to provide the various trappings of Internet service over their "last mile" pipes. (aka Local Loop Unbundling)
Pick one, please. Or go look for pictures of what telephone poles look(ed) like in the pre-carrier-regulation world, because that's what we'll get back if we toss the notion of natural monopolies for wireline telecommunications out the window.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
The Infrastructure for communications is like electricty and water, something that trends to, and is best provided as a regulated monopoly. The duality of Telco and Cable is an accident of history, where they originally provided completely separate and different services using different technologies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
This is what I fundamentally disagree with, and what the FCC is on record as wanting.
This logic directly created the problem we have now and why NN is a waste of time and more of a risk than it is a benefit!
Look a Puerto Rico... keeping our infrastructure "centralized" and control by the "middle men" is a bad solution. It's easy to hack, its easy to harm, and it does not survive natural disasters very well.
We need decentralized infrastructure where people are allowed to generate their own power, their own connection to the internet and able to collect and process their own rain water.
Yes that's right.. some cities do not even allow you collect rain water... for your safety of course. Most states and cities will not allow you to disconnect from the electric grid even when you can supply 100% of your own power.
These regulations are BULLSHIT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
And why do people think that a democracy would work again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Antivaxxers exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
So can pollution, but they do not care much about that when it is a corporation doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
>This is what I fundamentally disagree with, and what the FCC is on record as wanting.
Just how many poles and rights of way through your property are you prepared to accept? While if you have a sufficiently large property, you can generate you own power and water, you cannot connect to the Internet without crossing other people properties. Also with power and water, what if one person wishes to supply relatives, who cannot provide their own for reason like failing health, and to do so they need to route pipes and cables through your property.
How about someone erecting a windmill close to your house because the property boundary is close, and that position gets it as far away from their house as their property allows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Everything that is reasonable. I don't mind regulations that actually make sense. I just don't like having regulations that are only required because of other bad regulations. Why don't we just get rid of the bad regulations instead of trying to make more?
"How about someone erecting a windmill close to your house because the property boundary is close, and that position gets it as far away from their house as their property allows?"
This quickly become a rabbit hole. So lets make this simple.
I am okay with destroying regulations that prevent people from creating eyesores like having solar power panels on their roofs.
I am okay with having regulations that prevent people from creating dangerous structures that can fall onto someone elses property if it falls.
If they can build a windmill that will not fall anywhere but on their own property if it falls then they can have their windmill.
I am okay with rules that prevent people from damaging the environment too. And like in the case of rain collection... create regulations that inform people how to properly do it without causing damage, but don't remove their rights to be self sufficient just because.
We create laws to ensure that the middle men get to rule over our lives. they produce nothing but tax everything by existing! Let the producers and consumers start handing things and only allow regulations to put a stop to bad things and never allow them to dictate what is supposed to be the good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Why on earth would anyone be upset about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Yeah, you're right - Look at Houston, a shining example of how to recover from a natural disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shiny bauble distracting you idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shiny bauble distracting you idiots.
Kinda?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More lies
(To be clear; I mean this particular AC post; don't know if this is the same AC who makes genuinely crazy statements, aka OOTB.)
The more regulation, oversight, rules, approvals, paperwork, licenses, etc., etc., the less competition there will be - in any market.
Because all of these things create barriers to new entrants, and make life easier for already-established firms, esp. big ones with political connections.
As I've said many times, I support NN, given the broken state of the competitive ISP market.
But there's a perverse tradeoff here - the more red tape you have, the worse the market distortions, and the more red tape you need to limit or partially correct those distortions.
Those who want government to make sure everything works smoothly ensure that it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More lies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
I am okay with regulations, just not YOUR regulations.
My regulations would lead to real consumer choice.
Your regulations just lead to regulatory capture and big business monopolies... the ones you are "claiming" to want to prevent.
If anyone is a shill for telco's around here... it is the pro NN crowd.
I want real competition and regulations that protect consumer choice, not a document full of empty promises and fancy words that fool idiots!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Nowhere in any of the NN rules do they give more power to monopolies and the like, instead they take power away from them, which is exactly what you want.
You keep contradicting yourself in all of your posts. In one place you say are fine with NN rules as they stand and sometimes in the same breath say they give more power to monopolies. Then you go and once again agree that NN is a good thing while simultaneously saying the entire pro NN crowd are shills for telcos. This is why we can't take you seriously, you keep changing what you say in every post.
The only post that made a modicum of sense is where you argued that while NN is good, you viewed it as the least of all the issues that is wrong with our current ISP marketplace. I can at least understand where you are coming from in that and agree that in a perfect free market competition space, NN wouldn't even be needed. But we don't live there and just because NN rules shouldn't be needed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them when we do need them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/25/information-warfare-social-media-book-review-gaza/
Now think about what happens when the government (through ISP's) can control what you are allowed to see and access on the internet? Would the government allow opposing views or anything that disrupts their narrative on whatever pet project they are currently pushing? No.
If you don't think that this will lead to government control of the ISP's then you haven't been paying attention. How much money do you think the government is currently paying the ISP's for access to their internet backbone information for their direct access? Gee that's a nice ISP you have there, would be a shame if something happened to it...
But this will never happen I'm sure since the ISP's said they will play nice from now on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
We who support Network Neutrality have been paying attention. None of us wants the government in control of the ISPs. What we want is for the government to tell ISPs that they cannot fuck over the general public by throttling traffic, controlling what we can and cannot access, and creating “tiered” connections similar to cable TV “tiers” where we get access to certain sites at slower speeds—if we get access at all—unless we pay for the “privilege” of having our connections work as they do right now.
The government should have as little control as possible over what we can and cannot access on the Internet. The same goes for ISPs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Let me make this simple for you.
No matter what you say you want or not... your actions and support are leading to exactly giving government in control of ISP's.
You can SAY anything you what, but what you DO is what defines you! You support government controlled monopoly through your actions and support regardless of anything that comes out of your mouth!
Your heart can be in the right place each and every time you say something, but everything you create is corrupt because of ignorance.
Your support helped to create that problem we have now.
Many have told you that this was coming because of that support.
Many of you have ignored the warnings and even laughed and ridiculed the people warning you.
Now that what we told you would come has come... you are still made at us instead of yourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
You can stop shoving words down my throat like they were your penis. No one likes a pushy little prick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
The entire point of that article was that social media and the internet has allowed private citizens to have as much if not more influence in the reporting of news and getting accurate information out of countries that typically have controlled the narrative by totalitarian means. All of those private citizens making a difference wouldn't have been possible at all if it wasn't for net neutrality.
The article is a shining example of why we need net neutrality and the impact it has had on the world. Putting rules in place that specifically protect it and punish abusers of net neutrality is a good thing. It doesn't matter if the free market would solve the issue. NN can exist within a free market system. In fact, as you point out, that is the end goal, to have NN within a free market system.
NN rules don't give governments or ISPs any power to control what you can see and view online. They do the opposite, they make sure you can see everything online. It doesn't matter that they are instituted by the government because they are placing restrictions on themselves. It is exactly like any other law that protects citizens. Without laws stating that killing and stealing is illegal, killing and stealing would be rampant.
So keep the NN rules in place, they will not be invalidated by the return of a free market system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Had my laugh for the day - thanks :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
Quit copulating with your mother long enough to choke on this phallus, you smell of queef.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
The ordinary rules of fair dealing - promises must be kept, lying is not allowed (that's fraud), etc.
But provided those are complied with, everyone is welcome to compete for business.
There is an optimum amount of regulation. Too little and you have anarchy, too much and you have a system ripe for capture by those who know how to manipulate it. (Sound familiar?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More lies
With so many special interest groups out there stepping all over each other in their scramble to attain and maintain their special privileges? Too many do not understand that their rights are supposed to end where other's rights begin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
A "mugwump" for those young who may never have read (originated early 1800s), is someone who sits on a fence with his mug on one side, and his "wump" on the other: a fence-sitter, a ninny who can't or is afraid to decide. And that's the screen name chosen. -- Again, from Maya Angelou: when someone tells you who they are, believe them!
["out_of_the_blue", by the way, must surely have been used by someone aware of how wimpy fence-sitters will regard anyone STATING how believes the world SHOULD be.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mugwump
They are called fence sitters by virtue of not buying into political bullshit and immediately makes a person more respectable than the idiots joined to a political party.
This is how it goes down... join my group or I hate you. Plain and simple... groups are the refuge of the weak and stupid! Those who can think themselves are not fond of joining groups because they know that stupid idiots like you infest them!
I don't want to be associated with you idiots so I refuse to join your group! I just spend my time telling you how stupid you are.
I can clearly see the mistakes you are making but when I try to tell you that you are about to harm yourself, you don't pay attention... you get mad instead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
You cherry pick your facts (whether intentionally or unintentionally) and claim you're right but ignore all the other facts that disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
How long have we had regulations? How long has the ISP been screwing you?
I think you are the one ignoring the facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
I know you are but what am I? I think you got some splooge in your eyes on that last ejaculation, it's weakening your arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, "Old Mugwump": at least out_of_the_blue made statements!
I guess all those who buy into that group think crappola hate me. I do not care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Famous for being an obnoxious rude ass.
TRANSLATION: the person who needs to be corrected the most because they are so consistently wrong.
TRANSLATION: A puffed-up peon with a narcissistic personality disorder.
Nah, "angry dude" was far more notable than you.
Only the fear of losing IQ points from reading your pointless drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I knew OOTB, MyNameHere, and Whatever were the same guy, but Every Nation/Paint Chip guy is him too?
Huh. This site really does only have one regular anonymous troll, then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think Blue is any of those guys. He has a pretty unique style and verbiage.
I think NyNameHere used to go by Average Joe at one time and Whatever used to comment as A Horse with No Name, but I'm not really sure.
I also suspect that the paint chip guy is really Shiva Ayyadurai, but once again who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
MyNameHere used to comment as horse with no name, Just Sayin', and Whatever. Others have found patterns similar to old accounts in The Anti-Mike and Weird Harold.
It's staggering why these three idiots insist on hanging out on a website they hate so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More lies
Regulatory capture does not strictly have to come from the Federal government, but can come from ANY institution with the physical capacity to apply it.
That physical capacity be by legislative force (backed by actual physical force), or technological force (induced incompatibility), or induced scarcity (state monopoly grants).
Your position is that a lord beating the fuck out of his serf, isn't constraining the market on life and liberty because the king didn't order it. Or that a highway robber beating the fuck out of the same serf isn't effecting the market on life and liberty because he wasn't authorized by the king.
Econ is a science. Sock puppeting a couple of fundamentalist theories does not account for its full theoretical application. If you want to talk econ, first it might behoove you to do a little reading on Peredo's principle, which describes the predisposition of economic power to aggregate over time. Which is the problem that we are staring up the ass of, at this particular moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
I agree with you that the regulations that have created the ISP monopolies are mostly at the state and local levels (but the FCC hasn't helped any).
I'd like to see the FCC prevent state and municipal governments from erecting barriers to ISP competition (state licensing, pole attachment rules, etc.), and make them remove the existing ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More lies
Imagine how much luck a smaller firm would have, let alone a tiny startup.
That's why we have ISP monopolies, and that's why we worry about how those monopolies will abuse their power.
The only real long-term solution is competition and free entry into the market.
NN is a band-aid. We need an amputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Said ISPs will not divulge inner workings and will be overwhelmed with complaints, hacks and revelations about what they are up to. They will complain about the ungrateful masses and attempt to bribe ... errr I mean petition congress for relief from their obligations - because, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
one guilded cage at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Way
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it be interesting..
ANd at 1/2 the price??
But, corps would get Sooo Pissed...
They would Enforce rules that require the Gov. NOT to own a business..
Could we justify the Gov. taking over a WHOLE conglomerate?? IMPROVING it, Fixing it..then MAYBE selling it back?>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AI-box
If the AI is part of Facebook's news feed algorithms, though, we're screwed.
Also, who here wants to agree to Basilisk Pai and the telco execs once computronium gets cheap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NN: The tail wagging the dog
If the ISPs gave preference to (say) Netflix traffic and downgrades everything else, that would violate NN. But just not having a big enough pipe isn't by itself a NN violation.
It is a different problem, and one that should be addressed separately.
The issue is connection ratios, the ratio of end user speed versus network connectivity. There is no regulation on this stuff, and there really should be. It's a question of consumer protection and not of NN.
NN doesn't cover it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Well - apparently the political party presently in charge does not like consumer protections either. Their campaign contributors do not like consumers to be protected because that some how adversely affects their bottom line - and we all know how much these folk love their money, worship it they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
It is if the pipe between your network and your competitors is used to interfere in the service between your customers and your competitors.
This is one of the most common motifs that we have seen. For example, an ISP starves the pipe between Netflix and the ISP's customers, causing the Netflix service to be slow and unreliable (but, oddly, the ISP's own video service works just fine). Not only does that interfere in Netflix service delivery, but it actually damages Netflix's reputation. (By generating bad word-of-mouth such as: "Don't get Nexflix, their service sucks.")
The ISP then demands that Netflix pay for a pipe to access customers that signed up for Netflix's service--and for Netflix to save its reputation. Which is both anti-competitive and extortionate.
That is precisely non-NN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix could have improved their delivery by assuring that they were peered at their end with more providers, which would have given them more potential routes to every ISPs.
ISPs who didn't peer with Level3 were at the mercy of peering points between the major providers, which were being overloaded.
Again, no ISP is obligated to buy peering with anyone. NN does not specify size of pipe or bandwidth ratios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
I wonder if he'd be happy to buy phone service from multiple providers as well. A different provider for each person he wanted to call. Hey, wouldn't that be great? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Learn about peering here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
The stuff from Netflix has to get one the net somehow. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Wrong, peering is how network providers co-operate with each other, and they provide connection to end users of the Internet. Netflix is an end user, and so contracts service from a network provider (ISP), just like you do to get on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix is it's own ISP in the sense that it runs it's own data centers and then it chooses how and who it peers with.
In the case of Netflix, then went one step further, back in 2010 signing an exclusive deal with Level 3 to be their connectivity supplier and also to be their CDN.
Part of the problem is that not every ISP peers directly with level 3, often only getting connectivity to them via others. Some had peering but it wasn't very large.
So sorry, it's important to understand how they operate(d) and how they connect to the internet, as well as how your local residential ISP connects as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix cannot participate in peering relationships, as it cannot help route data between end points, but connects to the Internet as end points for it own service. Level three and others at that level of networking are also ISP for end points that have high traffic volumes, and presumable have offered Netflix the best terms for their Internet connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/peering-locations/
Mic drop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Quote from your reference
They they talking about the data centers that they operate, and how to connect to the nearest one. That is not the same a peering at the backbone level, where networks exchange traffic. Netflix gets to decide which backbone company they contract with for Internet connectivity, and do not have to give that business to a provider preferred by a particular ISPs, which is what Comcast was demanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Netflix doesn't peer with major backbones. It buys pipe from them. Where "peering" becomes a factor is when Netflix data has to cross between one carrier backbone and the other (meaning two AS# hops, not one). This is generally what is regarded as the difference between "peering" and being a "customer".
"BGP4 peering" != "peering". The two concepts are distinguishable by "BGP4" peering being the technical component and "peering" being a generalized concept. "Peer" denotes connections between similarly sized networks.
Generally a "peer" is unbilled capacity. Netflix doesn't have that, except maybe at a few "public peers" (yet another distinct concept). But at those locations it is highly unlikely that they transmit to Comcast or AT&T, but instead only use public peers to connect to smaller tier 2 and below networks. The reason is that public peers usually are at locations where capacity is backordered.
You are conflating a technical concept (that you don't seem to understand very well) with a political one. Yes Netflix has "bgp4 peers". No, they don't do "peering", as you have suggested.
Netflix is not a carrier (which in the modern world, is not generally distinguishable from being an ISP) because they do not own right of way. They pay the carriers for all of their pipe. The faff derives from WHO they pay.
While Level 3 has capacity with both Netflix and Comcast. Comcast is throttling by descriminating on AS#. This is typical of normal backbone traffic management. For those unfamiliar with the tech, big networks send advanced information about themselves to one another, to allow different administrative teams to plan and manage for each others traffic. This advanced notice is called a "route advertisement" and it is flagged with an AS# that identifies the owner of the network.
Where Comcasts network management becomes atypical, is when Comcast refuses to upgrade their network and can't keep up with the flow at their peers. And instead of just admitting that their network is a piece of shit, they discriminate against traffic from a SPECIFIC company, in order to compel them to pay much higher rates for direct connections. This is called racketeering, and it is a crime.
And while they may be doing it as an emergency measure because they're network is a piece of shit, and they don't want to invest in trans national capacity, it is still racketeering. Just combined with a whimper and tears, while they are whacking the shit out of Netflix with a baseball bat.
And Ajit Pai is standing right behind Comcast with brass knuckles and gold fronts, saying to the whole world: "Yeah muthafuckas! You best pay up or the motherfuckin' Congress of the United States is gonna fuck yo' bitch ass up!", as if the Senate is his personal stable of ho's. And behind him is AT&T and Verizon pimp sticking the Federal and State Congress's to make sure that they all suck the collective telecom dick with adequate enthusiasm.
If Ajit Pai wants to talk about free market, the first step is to compare investment in capacity in long haul networking between the carriers. Because the guys who are trying to kill NN, are the ones who've focused more on isolating their markets, and perpetrating civil rights violations they call "value added services" when they should have been investing in capacity.
Free markets have loosers. Ajit Pai want to kill NN because he thinks that god endowed him with the right to decide who they are. And if he has to wage a personal war on the Constitution to do it, then that is what he is going to do. He's backing unpopular position, in a country that is becoming progressively less tolerant of it's administrators.
This is going to be an issue at the polls. I guarantee it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
This is the kind of thing that lead to Plebeian uprisings in the Roman Republic.
Except Rome was smart enough to ban military weapons inside the city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NN: The tail wagging the dog
Bullshit. Netflix is not an ISP and having a "data center" does not make it one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]