Jump to content
Team Avolition
Dabato

The FCC officially votes to kill the internet

Recommended Posts

Yoshi    119

Haven't lost yet. They have congress to go through first, then after that they have lawsuits to go through. New York already started one.

Share this post


Link to post
revan114    1186

lol.

they're not fucking killing the internet, and net neutrality ending isn't going to kill it either.

net neutrality was implemented and established in 2015. do you remember the internet being dead before then? no? there u go everyone u will be fine.

here, go read about net neutrality and see why it isnt as big of a deal as reddit is making it out to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

specifically this:

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law in the United States. (oh yeah thats another thing, this is ending in fucking united states. how is it that the united states == the internet? the us has a lot of websites hosted, sure, but still.) Advocates of net neutrality have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their "last mile" infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors.[86] Opponents claim net-neutrality regulations are unnecessary and deter investment into improving broadband infrastructure.[87][88]

Between July 15 and September 15, 2014, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received 3.7 million comments to change the Internet to a telecommunications service, which would allow the FCC to uphold net neutrality.[89] On 26 February 2015, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 as well as section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996[90] to Internet service providers.[91][92][93][94][95][96] On 12 March 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rule.[97][98][99] And on 13 April 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new regulations.[100][101] The rule took effect on June 12, 2015.[102]

and do u know why this isnt a big deal sirs and girls? its because if a company did something fucking retarded as shit without net neutrality, something outrageous to where it disrupted the end user (and if its that outrageous it'd probably blow up online too giving them even worse reputation), then they would lose business. and isps dont want to lose business because they are fucking corporate entities.

Edited by revan114
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Pit_2    4

I'm not terribly worried.  There will be lawsuits up the ass, assuming Congress votes to repeal it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Risingbreak    7

As someone who doesn't live in the United States, All I've really done is sat back and watched. It's been interesting to see the statements from both people who say we need NN or else, and those who say that this isn't "true" NN and that everything will be fine. Only time will tell.

Although I must confess I mostly stopped paying attention due to Reddit endlessly screaming that it's the end of the fucking world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Dabato    3
17 hours ago, revan114 said:

net neutrality was implemented and established in 2015. do you remember the internet being dead before then? no? there u go everyone u will be fine.

Actually that is wrong. Net neutralility was put in place in 1996 under the telecommunications act. All that happened during the Obama administration was the reclassification of net neutrality from title 1 classification to title 2 classification.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Dabato said:

Actually that is wrong. Net neutralility was put in place in 1996 under the telecommunications act. All that happened during the Obama administration was the reclassification of net neutrality from title 1 classification to title 2 classification.

Yes but before 2015 it just wasn't illegal for ISPs to charge or throttle certain websites and the instances of ISPs slowing down or blocking data to favor certain sites over others are few and far between. when the FCC first attempted net neutrality regulations in 2010, they were only able to "cite just four examples of anticompetitive behavior, all relatively minor." The FCC also has the power to prevent ISPs from charging websites at rates they deem to be unfair. The internet isn't being "killed".

Share this post


Link to post
revan114    1186
18 minutes ago, Dabato said:

Actually that is wrong. Net neutralility was put in place in 1996 under the telecommunications act. All that happened during the Obama administration was the reclassification of net neutrality from title 1 classification to title 2 classification.

before being reclassified as title 2, net neutrality was pretty much just a voluntary principle most isps followed, otherwise they'd risk bad publicity(leading to shit profits)... my point still stands that before 2015 the internet wasnt fucking dead without net neutrality, and it won't be fucking dead now either.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Legion    543
1 hour ago, revan114 said:

before being reclassified as title 2, net neutrality was pretty much just a voluntary principle most isps followed, otherwise they'd risk bad publicity(leading to shit profits)... my point still stands that before 2015 the internet wasnt fucking dead without net neutrality, and it won't be fucking dead now either.

Except it was long understood that their policy (the FCC's) was that you cannot engage in that behavior, then in 2015 after I think Verizon tried to throttle connection to Netflix, net nutrality rules were in place.

 

You are correct in that it was not a written rule, but it was their policy for a long time. This is a complete upheval of their policy signaling to people that this is up for abuse.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Remy    307

United States:

AbrBYEe.jpg

 

Rest of the civilised world:

WEwEQ4h.jpg

Edited by Remy

Share this post


Link to post
Pit_2    4

Even if this does pass, the nerds of the world will figure out a way to essentially loophole around it.

Satellite 5G wireless is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614

I'm just a guy who thinks it was a sane move when it's all said and done. I realize and accept the potential for abuse; for ~6 years I had multiple ISPs that severely throttled common services (they weren't big name telecom providers, in case you're curious). As much as it sucked, it was their business, and they would probably never get the return on their investment needed to justify servicing my area and others like it without noticeable traffic shaping. The fact of the matter is that not all traffic can be routed at equal cost, and when you take away viable strategies to mitigate network congestion, anywhere without the customer base to warrant throwing down Big Iron equipment and infrastructure is not worth serving.

The only reason this thread is anything more than a passing mention is because many social media/mass media outlets basically created a "click here to automatically complain on behalf of our bottom line" button so that people who don't really give a shit can create noise and fit in with their peers on their Twitter timeline. All of the energy that was expended in bitching about a rule that did largely nothing over the course of its existence (and before it) could have instead went to fixing actual issues that prevent buildout, like local government enforcing geographic monopolies. However, since best effort mass media/advertising/data businesses (Twitter, Netflix, Google, Facebook, reddit, 4chan, etc.) had nothing to gain from it, there was no reason for them to take the time to create an astroturf shitstorm over it, and the biggest contributing factors to telecom non-competition in the US market go unchecked because most people don't even know about them.

Edited by BeeJesus
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    300
On 12/15/2017 at 3:29 PM, revan114 said:

before being reclassified as title 2, net neutrality was pretty much just a voluntary principle most isps followed, otherwise they'd risk bad publicity(leading to shit profits)... my point still stands that before 2015 the internet wasnt fucking dead without net neutrality, and it won't be fucking dead now either.

You're dumb. The FCC has been stopping violations of Net Neutrality well before 2015. The FCC got sued in 2015 stating they didn't have the legal right to prevent net neutrality from being violated under title 1. They then reclassified the internet as title 2 and created new rules for the new legal framework.

 

On 12/15/2017 at 9:50 PM, BeeJesus said:

I'm just a guy who thinks it was a sane move when it's all said and done. I realize and accept the potential for abuse; for ~6 years I had multiple ISPs that severely throttled common services (they weren't big name telecom providers, in case you're curious). As much as it sucked, it was their business, and they would probably never get the return on their investment needed to justify servicing my area and others like it without noticeable traffic shaping. The fact of the matter is that not all traffic can be routed at equal cost, and when you take away viable strategies to mitigate network congestion, anywhere without the customer base to warrant throwing down Big Iron equipment and infrastructure is not worth serving.

The only reason this thread is anything more than a passing mention is because many social media/mass media outlets basically created a "click here to automatically complain on behalf of our bottom line" button so that people who don't really give a shit can create noise and fit in with their peers on their Twitter timeline. All of the energy that was expended in bitching about a rule that did largely nothing over the course of its existence (and before it) could have instead went to fixing actual issues that prevent buildout, like local government enforcing geographic monopolies. However, since best effort mass media/advertising/data businesses (Twitter, Netflix, Google, Facebook, reddit, 4chan, etc.) had nothing to gain from it, there was no reason for them to take the time to create an astroturf shitstorm over it, and the biggest contributing factors to telecom non-competition in the US market go unchecked because most people don't even know about them.

What services cause more congestion than others?

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
117    17
1 hour ago, PigHunter said:

What services cause more congestion than others?

 

I think the question is what services use higher bandwidth which would be things like gaming, social media, file sharing, and streaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    300
14 hours ago, 117 said:

I think the question is what services use higher bandwidth which would be things like gaming, social media, file sharing, and streaming. 

Then why not use a bandwidth cap, or throttle after x amount of usage, or throttle people using a lot of bandwidth during peak times. Why restrict what services they can use?

Share this post


Link to post
117    17
4 hours ago, PigHunter said:

Then why not use a bandwidth cap, or throttle after x amount of usage, or throttle people using a lot of bandwidth during peak times. Why restrict what services they can use?

T-mobile has a bandwidth cap. and part of the problem is somewhere in the 75% range is I think just on steaming. I don't know for sure, I read this statistic a while back I feel it may be wrong. but the point is what the majority of people do on the internet is high bandwidth already, meaning let us just downgrade everyone to idk 128 Kbps from say 10 Mbps which I believe TWC was having a publicity issue due to them delivering slower speeds than what was being promised. (Customers were upset because they were paying for High-speed Internet but got slowed speeds)

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    300
40 minutes ago, 117 said:

T-mobile has a bandwidth cap. and part of the problem is somewhere in the 75% range is I think just on steaming. I don't know for sure, I read this statistic a while back I feel it may be wrong. but the point is what the majority of people do on the internet is high bandwidth already, meaning let us just downgrade everyone to idk 128 Kbps from say 10 Mbps which I believe TWC was having a publicity issue due to them delivering slower speeds than what was being promised. (Customers were upset because they were paying for High-speed Internet but got slowed speeds)

Then make it apparent that of the network cap and impose a bandwidth cap for usage during peak time; it shouldn't be legal to chose how I use my internet. Similar to how I should be able to use my electricity as I please.

Share this post


Link to post
117    17
34 minutes ago, PigHunter said:

Then make it apparent that of the network cap and impose a bandwidth cap for usage during peak time

T-Mobile sends users a text message after x amount of data used and the bandwidth is lowered; 

37 minutes ago, PigHunter said:

it shouldn't be legal to chose how I use my internet. Similar to how I should be able to use my electricity as I please.

1

The way internet is under Title 2 enforces companies to treat it similar to an electricity bill, at a fixed rate; So then we agree on how we should all be able to do whatever it is we please (Within legal parameters) with our internet connection, similar to other utilities.

 

would you like to upgrade to the high energy consumption package which allows you to use the following:  Microwave oven, Dryers, Hairdryers, refrigerators, heaters and so much more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614
18 hours ago, PigHunter said:

Then why not use a bandwidth cap, or throttle after x amount of usage, or throttle people using a lot of bandwidth during peak times. Why restrict what services they can use?

If an ISP was attempting to control network congestion and allowed people to choose their strategy to do so, giving them the choice between

A.) Bandwidth cap
B.) Throttling entire connection after X usage
C.) Throttling entire connection after X usage at peak times
D.) Throttling certain services (the realistic worst case of what you're arguing against)

Most people would choose D if it didn't have the sensationalist spin that "Netflix will cost $199 per second to watch!" Your own example defeats itself; every alternative you gave is worse than what you're arguing against if we don't put an unrealistic spin on option D.

1 hour ago, 117 said:

T-Mobile sends users a text message after x amount of data used and the bandwidth is lowered; 

The way internet is under Title 2 enforces companies to treat it similar to an electricity bill, at a fixed rate; So then we agree on how we should all be able to do whatever it is we please (Within legal parameters) with our internet connection, similar to other utilities.

 

would you like to upgrade to the high energy consumption package which allows you to use the following:  Microwave oven, Dryers, Hairdryers, refrigerators, heaters and so much more.

The issue with the comparison to electricity is that it's apples-to-oranges. Electrical appliances draw X amount of current; you are charged for high energy consumption at peak hours. With internet service, every site and service has a different cost to route; some incur more overhead than others, and trying to tell businesses that they're not allowed to compensate for that as they see fit is shortsighted at best and dangerous at the very worst. Once the electricity is installed at your house, nothing you could do with it could increase the per-unit cost of providing it to you except high usage across the entire grid, which you are charged for. That is not true for providing consumer internet.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
majesty327    206

We need Net Neutrality, but the Net Neutrality bill is not the Net Neutrality we asked for or needed. The issue is more complex than most think.
Either or this is why we have checks and balances.
The realistic problem with not having a net neutrality act is infrastructure.
While yes, in an ideal market economy, when one company gets too big for its britches, it is broken up or competed against. With telecommunications not so much. Telecom demands massive investment in infrastructure, especially if said infrastructure is privately owned a la a private road. Because of the big upfront investment in infrastructure, young companies are less likely to offer competitive prices or a usable service, and would probably end up starving to death. This frees up major telecom companies to be abusive on a whim. 

Edited by majesty327

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    300
17 hours ago, majesty327 said:

We need Net Neutrality, but the Net Neutrality bill is not the Net Neutrality we asked for or needed. The issue is more complex than most think.
Either or this is why we have checks and balances.
The realistic problem with not having a net neutrality act is infrastructure.
While yes, in an ideal market economy, when one company gets too big for its britches, it is broken up or competed against. With telecommunications not so much. Telecom demands massive investment in infrastructure, especially if said infrastructure is privately owned a la a private road. Because of the big upfront investment in infrastructure, young companies are less likely to offer competitive prices or a usable service, and would probably end up starving to death. This frees up major telecom companies to be abusive on a whim. 

It's possible to run  an ISP without massive infrastructure investments. Wireless is often times pretty fantastic, it's not uncommon for small WISPs to get sued into oblivion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614
17 hours ago, PigHunter said:

It's possible to run  an ISP without massive infrastructure investments. Wireless is often times pretty fantastic, it's not uncommon for small WISPs to get sued into oblivion though.

WISP equipment is not terribly cheap. Even just the customer radio will probably not be covered by your installation fee, and you can bet your ass that an appreciable number of your radios will burn out every couple of years. Tack on "cheap" backhaul radios, routing and switching equipment, etc. and it's no longer a "cheap" proposition. 802.11 technology just isn't cut out for providing reliable connections, to boot. The slightest obstruction, rain, snow, etc. and connection quality will tank. Fixed point LTE is significantly better in this regard, but the equipment and radios cost even more, the regulatory overhead is leaps and bounds worse than anything in the IMS bands, and such an application is "off-meta", so good luck finding enough people familiar with the technology that are willing to leave a secure job to go roll in the mud.

The two worst ISPs I have ever seen (and yes, they're the ones that I previously mentioned throttled connections) were WISPs and they're hardly exceptions to a rule. WISPs only exist because they don't get sued into oblivion, not because they have good margins or are able to provide the same service with a lesser investment. Going wireless is the only way to sidestep township/county enforced monopolies in the US. For all intents and purposes, the cost of providing reliable internet service is absurdly high, because trying to run cable in "the wrong neighborhood" will get the full force of the local zoning board/township commissioner/etc. slamming you with legal technicalities that will kill your effort.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post
PigHunter    300
On 12/24/2017 at 3:46 PM, BeeJesus said:

WISP equipment is not terribly cheap. Even just the customer radio will probably not be covered by your installation fee, and you can bet your ass that an appreciable number of your radios will burn out every couple of years. Tack on "cheap" backhaul radios, routing and switching equipment, etc. and it's no longer a "cheap" proposition. 802.11 technology just isn't cut out for providing reliable connections, to boot. The slightest obstruction, rain, snow, etc. and connection quality will tank. Fixed point LTE is significantly better in this regard, but the equipment and radios cost even more, the regulatory overhead is leaps and bounds worse than anything in the IMS bands, and such an application is "off-meta", so good luck finding enough people familiar with the technology that are willing to leave a secure job to go roll in the mud.

The two worst ISPs I have ever seen (and yes, they're the ones that I previously mentioned throttled connections) were WISPs and they're hardly exceptions to a rule. WISPs only exist because they don't get sued into oblivion, not because they have good margins or are able to provide the same service with a lesser investment. Going wireless is the only way to sidestep township/county enforced monopolies in the US. For all intents and purposes, the cost of providing reliable internet service is absurdly high, because trying to run cable in "the wrong neighborhood" will get the full force of the local zoning board/township commissioner/etc. slamming you with legal technicalities that will kill your effort.

I have no WISPs locally, I've read about them plenty though. Webpass is quick Atlass communications is quick. Setting up a WISP as a meshnet increases reliability. The startup cost for a 500 person WISP if 50,000 dollars. It's doable and is, compared to laying copper or fiber, is fairly cheap. You're thinking of WISPs that existed a decade ago, wireless has come a long way.

Share this post


Link to post
Narka    614
6 hours ago, PigHunter said:

I have no WISPs locally, I've read about them plenty though. Webpass is quick Atlass communications is quick. Setting up a WISP as a meshnet increases reliability. The startup cost for a 500 person WISP if 50,000 dollars. It's doable and is, compared to laying copper or fiber, is fairly cheap. You're thinking of WISPs that existed a decade ago, wireless has come a long way.

I'm thinking of WISPs as they are today. There are 3 or 4 WISPs active in my area. My current internet connection is actually a Charter residential connection that is transmitted from where it's installed a few miles away to my home. I've installed multiple other setups like it. I know people who work at WISPs.

Mesh topology really doesn't do much for reliability; it's mostly a cost cutting measure, and you feel it when you have to manage a mesh network that has uneven performance throughout. Meshes almost always exist in an ad-hoc capacity, and it is an outright worthless strategy in any area with a low population density.

Webpass and Atlas are entirely reliant on the existing infrastructure of the select few buildings they serve. They are about as useful to the average consumer as the Merit Network.

The startup cost for a 500 person WISP is nowhere remotely fucking close to as low as $50,000. You couldn't even buy the customer radios for that budget, let alone any of the routing and switching equipment, a line lease, personnel to install equipment, etc. Go ahead and triple/quadruple that budget and you might have a viable network, albeit with low-end equipment.

I don't think you understand how cheap it is to run fiber; the compelling aspect of the technology is that the cable is extremely cheap with the tradeoff being expensive endpoint equipment and termination. Now that Ubiquiti is trying to shake it up in the fiber market (fiber endpoint for ~$80, I can't even keep up with all the new products they've been releasing any more) it would probably be easier to run fiber at the same cost if it weren't for absurd regulatory overhead.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×