Jump to content
Team Avolition

The FCC officially votes to kill the internet

Recommended Posts

Asp4yxiat10n    430
On 12/22/2017 at 6:32 AM, BeeJesus said:

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.

As someone who lives where A, B and C are/were common practice and accepted and utilised in some shape or form by most Australian ISP's, D is not preferable. Data and bandwidth caps may have been and continue to be annoying and frustrating as Australia's fiber network is rolled out to replace our poorly maintained copper network, I can say its much more preferable to having the potential for certain services to be blocked and throttled because my ISP decided it was so. 

Do not assume to know what is preferable, especially with your constant dismissal of people's justifiable concern as being driven by "sensationalist spin" and without ever actually living in a country where those are common practice, where our copper network more commonly then not LOOKS LIKE THIS.





Also a brief aside its almost here. 


Edited by Asp4yxiat10n

Share this post

Link to post
PigHunter    301
On 12/27/2017 at 1:31 AM, BeeJesus said:


You obviously know far more than I, so I'm going to concede. The articles I've read obviously were being needlessly evangelical about the viability of a WISP.

Share this post

Link to post
Narka    614
On 12/27/2017 at 5:34 AM, Asp4yxiat10n said:


I had an ISP with a bandwidth cap, and most cell carriers in the US operate in this manner. In this day and age of "web artisans" and dogshit developers, nobody bothers with efficiency any more; Joe Average will undoubtedly run over their allocated bandwidth through normal usage. Is it really best to have to choose between a ridiculous rate for continued usage or not using it at all?

Throttling after X bandwidth usage is how most cell carriers in the US handle "unlimited" data, and it is one of the most widely derided policies in the entire industry. Remember that throttling usually puts you well below 1Mb/s; you cannot watch any video, you cannot download anything of appreciable size, and even a webpage with more than a handful of images will start to chug. You might be able to read some emails. You will be able to wonder why you're paying an absurd amount for service that ultimately becomes nothing.

Although ISPs in the US don't do it as a matter of configuration, their services are oversold to the extent that networks in populated areas will slow to a crawl at peak hours. I'm on a rural circuit, so I personally don't suffer from this, but this issue is acknowledged pretty much across the board anywhere that has a moderately dense population.

A majority of people in the US experience at least one of the above strategies, either through their fixed-point connection, their mobile connection, or both. It is common practice. For almost all intents and purposes, options A, B, and C will provide you little to no service once you're out-of-bounds. Option D sucks shit, but you're at least left with something useful when it's all said and done. The US is not some telecoms utopia where we have immaculate infrastructure while you poor souls in Australia are left with the scraps. If it weren't subzero outside right now, I would go take pictures of the four or five termination boxes in my area that look exactly like the ones you linked.

Justifiable concern is saying that ISPs may charge more for unobstructed access to certain services, like Facebook. I don't flippantly dismiss justifiable concern; I accept that it is a possibility, but I am willing to accept that business doesn't revolve around what's best for me, and work toward a cure for the problem instead of treating the symptoms. Sensationalist spin is telling people that it will cost them $5 every time they log on to Facebook to like baby pictures and make passive-aggressive comments about Carol in accounting. That is how the loss of net neutrality was marketed in the US. That is what Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, and Google (which comprise well over half of all NA internet traffic) force-fed their users in an effort to get a huge majority of people who would otherwise wouldn't care to make a ruckus.

Edited by BeeJesus

Share this post

Link to post
majesty327    206

In general I think a lot of people that state "muh invisible hand" don't take into account things such as infrastructure and monopolies.
Internet has become a necessity in our daily lives. You can't apply for a job, or take a college course without interacting with a computer and the internet along the way.
While I am sure that privatization of internet can happen sometime in the future, it has not reached that critical mass of infrastructure or technology or competitiveness to make it sustainable or pro-consumer. 
Remember that we need businesses and services to work for us, not to rip us off, as is the status quo today. My feeling is that that the state can behave in ways more altruistic and solution based, and less profit driven, and this is what we need to provide a more free and open internet.
So I think the internet being regarded as a public utility, at least for the moment, is a good thing, because it can prevent monopolistic practices and abusive behavior that would otherwise prevent growth and stagnate industry a la 19th century American railroad trusts.
A free and open internet can happen, just not today.
I cannot pretend to be completely knowledgeable, and I'm mostly talking out of my ass, but if I am wrong, please correct me and tell me where.

Edited by majesty327
  • Upvote 1

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