FCC wants your thoughts on Net Neutrality

[choof]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/15/57...in-may-meeting

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/15/57...ality-proposal

Net neutrality is a very VERY important issue right now. The concept of net neutrality is that ISPs should treat all data equally, and there should be no discrimination or charging by user, content, site, etc.
An example of this can actually be seen in a thread on FFR. Lack of net neutrality would make the issue in this thread much more prevalent.

Fortunately there are quite a few people in the FCC who are totally and completely for net neutrality, but because of the fact there are people who are against it, they're opening comments to the public.

http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/assets/44586...ality-fact.pdf
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=112ea

If you care about this issue, you should definitely send comments. I'll be writing up a pretty large statement for the FCC in the next week or two.

[devonin]

The best description of the issue.

[choof]

haven't seen that video yet but yep, it's perfect

[gold stinger]

I can't wait for google to buy and monopolize every brand that I know

just so I wouldn't have to buy Life Brand anymore

[XelNya]

Praise be onto the almighty god, Google. Save us from the satanic one Concast

In all seriousness, yeah we need to keep a free internet as described in that video. The way it's explained there is pretty well done.

[gold stinger]

I don't have to deal with Comcast & Verizon, living in Canada and all, but we have our share of providers that act the same way.

This issue is ideally the tangle of cords underneath my computer desk.

[dragon890x]

Yes, I would love to allow petabytes of spam to be treated the same as my websites and services.

Also, this will encourage ISPs and internet users to more forcefully attack those who are considered to be using the internet for 'criminal purposes'. I'd put money down that every one in this thread falls into that category. Why would I say such a thing? Well, that's because petabytes of spam makes the internet slow, of course.

Some people fight for the most interesting things.

[Kekeb]

Originally Posted by devonin

ytvid

Monopolies are a mathematical inevitability? I really wish I weren't so ignorant of economics, but to me that sounds more like a political stance than a statement of fact. I can see how antitrust laws are generally effective, but are monopolies actually an inevitability within every market of trade?

[choof]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Yes, I would love to allow petabytes of spam to be treated the same as my websites and services.

Also, this will encourage ISPs and internet users to more forcefully attack those who are considered to be using the internet for 'criminal purposes'. I'd put money down that every one in this thread falls into that category. Why would I say such a thing? Well, that's because petabytes of spam makes the internet slow, of course.

Some people fight for the most interesting things.

this is easily your best post

[choof]

i can be le troll too

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kekeb

Monopolies are a mathematical inevitability? I really wish I weren't so ignorant of economics, but to me that sounds more like a political stance than a statement of fact. I can see how antitrust laws are generally effective, but are monopolies actually an inevitability within every market of trade?

Without controls, she says. Not always.

[DigitalS3r4ph]

I've contacted my representatives and senators every day for the past three days on this lol. The peeps who answer the phones are tired of hearing from me by now.

[gold stinger]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Also, this will encourage ISPs and internet users to more forcefully attack those who are considered to be using the internet for 'criminal purposes'.

I'd put money down that every one in this thread falls into that category.

Chances are if you ever stepped a song for FFR, or downloaded a pack for stepmania, you fall into this category as well with that logic.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by dragon890x

Why would I say such a thing? Well, that's because petabytes of spam makes the internet slow, of course.

The "internet" as a whole isn't ever going to get slower until you are somehow maxing the bandwidth of the entire fiber lanes across countries and continents. If that somehow ever happened there would probably be more fiber laid to accommodate the increased global traffic.

Also no, this wouldn't encourage ISP's to do anything. They aren't the ones who care about you using the internet for illegitimate purposes. You are their customer and reporting you means less money for them.

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by Izzy

The "internet" as a whole isn't ever going to get slower until you are somehow maxing the bandwidth of the entire fiber lanes across countries and continents. If that somehow ever happened there would probably be more fiber laid to accommodate the increased global traffic.

I would have believed this before working as a systems administrator.

http://www.cnet.com/news/record-brea...-hits-400gbps/
This happened while attempting to block illegitimate traffic.

Keep in mind that this affected my company's network, and we're located within the United States. This is a single attack, a piece of the traffic that is traveling across the internet.

Imagine if we became more lenient simply because ignorant people are complaining that their speeds have been throttled after being caught torrenting copyrighted material. The only problem Comcast has is it's price. The majority of what users complain about originate from the physical layer, those lines that are laid throughout the land.

Also, who is going to pay for these added lines when it comes to expansion to accommodate growth? Are you?

Right now, many are relying on Google to fund projects such as these. However, they fail to see that Google will be placed in the same shoes as all of the other internet providers.

The truth is, most of what we deal with on a local level isn't a grand schema of fiber connections. Those lines, and even ones of fiber optic cables, have a bandwidth cap that is unavoidable. Once you begin to allow people to flood these lines, you will notice a crowding effect. The overall speed will drop, and users will complain. ISPs will use this as a good opportunity to raise prices. Those fighting against users breaking copyrights will have more to grab on, stating that much needed bandwidth is being used for illegitimate reasons.

I don't know what kind of magical internet some think we have setup, but it's a nice dream.

Bandwidth is nothing more than real estate, and the price will reflect as much.

[Izzy]

I don't see how a DDOS is the same at all. That is already illegal.

[choof]

I think you're a little bit confused.
Tiered pricing for bandwidth has nothing to do with net neutrality.

[choof]

edit: nvm
dads

[dragon890x]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I don't see how a DDOS is the same at all. That is already illegal.

That was my point.

@Choof Sorry for being an asshat. I would really like for a better, more open internet. This just a major concern of mine.

[gold stinger]

If were going to be talking about criminals on the internet and such in question, why don't the NSA do something about it?

Oh yeah that's right, they can't keep up, and they only deal with big cases, one at a time. (At least, from the results they are pouring out that make it to public eye...) Let's give ISPs the same responsibilities & power and let them do it instead. ISPs would want to control what they get out of the situation, and that's bottom line.

The issue isn't about criminals. ISPs want more money, more control, faster expansion, bigger growth. What company wouldn't want this? If it passes, it gives power to companies to extort websites for money and make customers suffer in the process, and makes it that much harder to pass certain info down the line to other people. It also gives ISPs power to control what others get out of their internet for the majority of users.

My guess is that if something like this does get through and becomes a real thing, people will try to find ways around it to jump on it as a cash grab. Not entirely sure how they plan on implementing it yet (mostly because it's still in debate) but if possible, people will open up services for net neutrality contracts, separate from anti-net neutrality, and I can foresee the term "net neutrality" being tossed around as a business term, just like they did with "unlimited bandwidth/internet".