net neutrality

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

net neutrality

Postby makena » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:18 pm

I know I don't post that much but I would like to invite fellow shackers to ponder what is happening to our beloved internet.
The internet and access to it is under attacked by ISP (internet service providers ie comcast, verizon, cox, century link, AT&T, t-Mobile...) corporations.
They want to role back the FCC's title 2 guidelines that govern how ISP's can gate or block content. Please watch this video ( https://youtu.be/UsyzP5hejxI ) and support net neutrality.
Yoder and I are technologies and these issues are important to us. Regardless of your political perspective, a free and open internet is important for all.

Again, check this link out ( https://youtu.be/UsyzP5hejxI ) and support the cause!

Here are some additional links from different perspectives:

https://youtu.be/tW9xTsP9k4o
https://youtu.be/s1Xo-l3dr-Y
https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak

Here is the FCC website. Click on 'Express' on the right side and fill out the form.

https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/proceedings?q=name:((17-108))


Please Support!!

Mak
Last edited by makena on Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
makena
Legacy
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am
Location: Burien, WA

Re: net neutrality

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:07 am

TRUMP, that is what is happening to are beloved internet. Now we will get to hear from IDH, ASEA, and RD regale us how Trump is only going to make the internet "better" .
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: net neutrality

Postby RiverDog » Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:16 am

Thanks a lot for the info, Mak, and for sharing your point of view with us. I'm not a techie like you guys are so I'm not familiar with the debate. On issues like this where I am not well informed, have a habit of turning to friends that I trust and that are closer to the issue than I am to help me decide which side of it to come down on, and even though I have never met you in person, have come to consider you as one of my friends and a person that I can trust.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 7232
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:42 pm

Seahawks4Ever wrote:TRUMP, that is what is happening to are beloved internet. Now we will get to hear from IDH, ASEA, and RD regale us how Trump is only going to make the internet "better" .


Now you're taking personal attacks to another thread before anyone has even posted. I now dub you the Trump of this forum. You're going everywhere you can and trying to bully people for their differing opinions. What's next? Am I going to see the names of forum members on your Twitter account taking shots at us because we didn't agree with you and called you unhinged?
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:55 pm

Hmmm. I do think the Internet has become like a utility. The Internet is basically like the roads for real world commerce, virtually all types of social interactions, and information delivery. It's become such an integral part of daily life that certain businesses would be gone without the Internet as well as a major sector of the economy. I think it should be legislated in the same way as a utility.

My one concern is content providers. So many of these companies are also content providers. I think that is a problem and should be disentangled. Controlling the roads for content delivery while at the same time owning the content is too powerful a position that could lead to monopolization of the media.

Though I am highly concerned about the protection of intellectual property. The arguments that pirating isn't having a massive negative impact on the entertainment industry doesn't hold water with me. It's so easy to steal and distribute content that something has to be done to protect the work of people making books, movie, and music. Someone stealing someone's work and distributing en masse on the Internet is not marketing, it's thievery. Painting it as some form of beneficial marketing is pure fantasy. People that produce creative content should be able to control the distribution of that content and protect it from illegal distribution.

I'll watch the video later to see what other elements I haven't explored. At the moment I'm for the Internet being classified as a utility, separated from ownership by content providers, and kept as an open environment for people to conduct business and whatever else should strike their fancy.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Largent80 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:35 am

Radio and TV has been broadcasting (FOR FREE) Music and Movies for many decades. People can simply record these and it's not considered piracy.

As a musician with multiple recordings I have no problem with people getting our product by any means. It may hurt sales in the present but offering up free music usually leads to future sales.

I will support the OP however as in my opinion we need less rules and greed (which is the real issue here) in this small world.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Fri Nov 24, 2017 12:11 pm

So this is a red herring debate.

Some on here believe that giving the Internet to the government so it can be run like a utility would be a good thing. Many states are privatizing utility companies for electric, gas, etc. because they offer better services and lower costs due to competition.

Since the OP is in technology they must know that the Internet came from the government and was deregulated by George Bush Sr. when he was president. (I could have been president in the 90s during Clinton's terms and had just as good of an economy because of this simple fact. Nothing was going to stop the revolution of the Internet once it was privatized.) Because of the deregulation, the Internet has grown from 4 central distribution centers in the U.S. to a global worldwide service that has created wealth across the Globe.

Now, Net Neutrality has created an environment that only a few major companies can play in. If you can't offer the entire Internet, then you can't play in that arena. We now also see these major players buying competitors like the AT&T merger with Time Warner. Once the entire market it cornered or given to Governement, who is going to provide competition to them to keep the prices down? No one.

So why not lift the net neutrality and allow small players to offer services that you want and not have to pay for the entire Internet and pass those costs on to you? If you want cable tv do you have to buy the entire cable offering at a jacked up price? No. They have basic cable and they have add on channels and premium movie channels. Should you have to pay for premium Internet services if you are not using them? No.

Now lets take a look at another aspect of net Neutrality. Right now you have to offer high speed all over, kind of like during the telephone days when the big cities had to pay for the rural areas to get phone service at the same price as the big city guys. Is that fair? If you have to maintain longer phone runs with few paying customers you should be able to charge those customers for their service and not burden the others who have more people to spread out the costs of the service along with fewer problems because of the proximity of the head end.

Now lets consider the doom and gloom that the videos in the OP spew. They think that if AT&T can provide only their services to customers then the customers of AT&T will go somewhere else to get their service. Reality is that the big guys will want to offer everything they can to customers to keep them on their network. Consider the cell phones companies. If you are on AT&T's service, can you call someone on Sprint, Verizon or any of the other services? Yes, you can. Why? Because if AT&T limited you to just their services, you would go to someone else. The cell companies are not regulated by a similar Net Neutrality mandate and yet they still work across platforms. That scenario also allows for new comers like cricket and the other new cell providers. Also, if Sprint comes out with a new service like "unlimited data" for $xx a month then the others usually follow suit as soon as enough of their subscribers jump to Sprint.

So in summary, we don't need government involved in regulating what the Internet can and can not do to offer new products, services, bundles, etc. Let the market set what is wanted and bought.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:51 pm

The internet did NOT come from the government, not any more that it was invented by Al Gore. And putting it under the control of billionaires and corporations is bad for everyone but those billionaires and corporations.

Net neutrality is essential. We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: K-evil Kentucky, 42053

Re: net neutrality

Postby burrrton » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:18 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.


God I hate euphemisms- isn't "net neutrality" allowing State to run the internet? Honest question- there's so much bullsh*t written on both sides of this I get crossed up.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:19 pm

Disregard. Covered below.
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:38 pm

I know eventually net neutrality will return once people see what happens when the Internet is controlled by corporations without restraint allowing them to leverage Internet service to control content. It will suck short-term if this gets pushed through. Internet service will inevitably be classified as a utility given the place it now has in life. If these big companies want to fight the inevitable, they can do so. It's going to happen at some point. You can't allow delivery of the internet to be controlled to the level this will push it to without big players fighting back. This is going to be a money versus money fight. I'm fairly certain Google doesn't want Youtube controlled by rivals like Comcast and Verizon or companies like Amazon or even Microsoft.

Controlling the roads the internet is delivered over would allow you to leverage that into almost any business you desire, while screwing over the other guy by charging him to deliver his content while also conducting business. That markup from service deliver will allow you to undercut anyone.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Fri Nov 24, 2017 4:55 pm

idhawkman wrote:Some on here believe that giving the Internet to the government so it can be run like a utility would be a good thing. Many states are privatizing utility companies for electric, gas, etc. because they offer better services and lower costs due to competition.


This is not how classifying as a utility works. You do not remove a utility from private ownership by classifying as a utility. You should know this ID. Phones were classified as a utility and all privately owned, even after Ma Bell was broken up.

Now, Net Neutrality has created an environment that only a few major companies can play in. If you can't offer the entire Internet, then you can't play in that arena. We now also see these major players buying competitors like the AT&T merger with Time Warner. Once the entire market it cornered or given to Governement, who is going to provide competition to them to keep the prices down? No one.


No one will keep competition down anyway. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to build and maintain an internet network that spans the globe? They are no mom and pop internet service providers because of the exorbitant cost. That fight was decided a long time ago. Did you watch the fiber battle during the 90s? The number of companies that went bankrupt trying to build out networks was immense. You will notice that DSL competition has all but disappeared because Verizon and the other big phone players decided to do it themselves. The exorbitant cost destroyed competition.

So why not lift the net neutrality and allow small players to offer services that you want and not have to pay for the entire Internet and pass those costs on to you? If you want cable tv do you have to buy the entire cable offering at a jacked up price? No. They have basic cable and they have add on channels and premium movie channels. Should you have to pay for premium Internet services if you are not using them? No.


You think this type of control really benefits anyone? Does anyone want this? Were they complaining to begin with? Or is this a money grab attempt, so ISPs that also own content like Comcast and Verizon can leverage it to undercut competitors?

Now lets take a look at another aspect of net Neutrality. Right now you have to offer high speed all over, kind of like during the telephone days when the big cities had to pay for the rural areas to get phone service at the same price as the big city guys. Is that fair? If you have to maintain longer phone runs with few paying customers you should be able to charge those customers for their service and not burden the others who have more people to spread out the costs of the service along with fewer problems because of the proximity of the head end.


Fair? Is it fair the telephone has become so necessary for business that Mr. Rural guy needs one to do just about anything? It's about a particular technology becoming so much of a part of daily life that you want relatively equal delivery of the service such as with the phones and roads. Business is heavily conducted across the medium. Equal delivery allows even Mr. Rural to run a business way out in the middle of nowhere as well as the guy that lives in the city. This allows a larger number of people to compete in the marketplace, thus increasing competition in other ways than ISP competition. Same as phone services and roads allowed for a much larger and less regulated level of business competition that was good for the nation.

Now lets consider the doom and gloom that the videos in the OP spew. They think that if AT&T can provide only their services to customers then the customers of AT&T will go somewhere else to get their service. Reality is that the big guys will want to offer everything they can to customers to keep them on their network. Consider the cell phones companies. If you are on AT&T's service, can you call someone on Sprint, Verizon or any of the other services? Yes, you can. Why? Because if AT&T limited you to just their services, you would go to someone else. The cell companies are not regulated by a similar Net Neutrality mandate and yet they still work across platforms. That scenario also allows for new comers like cricket and the other new cell providers. Also, if Sprint comes out with a new service like "unlimited data" for $xx a month then the others usually follow suit as soon as enough of their subscribers jump to Sprint.


You want to stream movies, you have to pay the ISP cost to stream. If Comcast wants to stream movies, they don't have to pay a mark up. This gives them a cost advantage in nearly every business over the internet. Whereas every single business will be paying them to deliver content and thus increasing their profits for Internet delivery, Comcast can undercut that cost by providing internet service for their businesses at cost. It's a huge, huge advantage.

Do you really believe everyone can build out a network? Not only is this cost prohibitive, the destructiveness to the environment in general would be bad. You really want 10 different companies running cables through the ground to provide internet access? Don't we already have enough problems with cell phone companies building and maintaining towers and networks? As well as the number of satellites now orbiting the earth to deliver cellular service. There's a lot of reasons to run internet delivery like a utility. It won't make them owned by the government. It will create huge zones for private companies to run in and create a government sanctioned monopoly within these zones, must like power companies nowadays and phone companies before the advent of cellular service.
Last edited by Aseahawkfan on Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby burrrton » Fri Nov 24, 2017 5:49 pm

After reading, it's what I thought- "net neutrality" is government price control. "EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME" means you (with your one-page website) will pay the same as Google, not that Google will pay the same as you.

It didn't help anybody in NYC (except landlords) and it won't help the internet. Should be gotten rid of yesterday.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:34 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:The internet did NOT come from the government, not any more that it was invented by Al Gore. And putting it under the control of billionaires and corporations is bad for everyone but those billionaires and corporations.

Net neutrality is essential. We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.


This is for CBob regarding the beginnings of the Internet. It started as ARPAnet because the government was the only people who could afford to do this kind of research and development. The hubs for the interconnected networks were called MAE west and MAE East. The opening as you read it below is where NSFNET was allowed to privatize off of MAE east and west and move all the networks off of those two hubs. By opening those hubs up to the public, they quickly outgrew the switching capabilities of having just 2 interconnect points. Allowing the MCIs and AT&Ts of the world to interconnect directly between themselves and not have to go through cenralized hubs the Internet was able to grow to what it is today. "IF" Bush Sr. had not mandated the privatization of the hubs from arpanet, the network would still only be for large corporations and priviledged companies.

On a side note, ISDN was the most popular protocol for connecting to the "internet" back in the early 90's and late 80s. A 128kbps line would typically cost anywhere from $1,500 to $4,000 per month. I remember selling these services back then for those prices. One of the things that killed the Internet Wave was the ISPs like AT&T, MCI, Sprint did not want to give up those revenues easily so they got congress to pass regulation where the maximum upload speed was capped at 33kbps and download was 56kbps for dial up modems. NOTE: DSL services were developed in the 50's but through this regulation, it was not allowed to get out to the public. Video, audio, voice, etc services could not do what is needed at 56kbps download speeds and therefore, killed a lot of fledgling companies who were developing free voice services and other services back in the early 90s.

So here's the article CBob from a quick Google search:

In October 1969, the first ARPANET communications were sent between Kleinrock's lab at UCLA and the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) under the direction of Elizabeth Feinler. (Feinler later led the development of the domain names .gov, .com, .edu, .mil and others.) By the end of 1969, ARPANET had two more nodes at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Utah.

Many of the researchers who worked on ARPANET made significant contributions to the evolution of the Internet, including Leonard Kleinrock, inventor of packet switching (a basic Internet technology). Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn invented TCP/IP protocol in the 1970s, and in 1972, Ray Tomlinson introduced network email.

During the 1980s, the National Science Foundation started to build a nationwide computer network that included its own supercomputers, called NSFNET. ARPANET had grown well beyond the needs of the Department of Defense, and so the NSF took control of the "civilian nodes."

In 1990, ARPANET was officially decommissioned. Ultimately, the NSF aimed to build a network that was independent of government funding. The NSF lifted all restrictions on commercial use on its network in 1991 and in 1995, the Internet was officially privatized. At the time, the Internet was 50,000 networks strong, spanned seven continents, and reached into space.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Seahawks4Ever » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:03 am

#1. ASEA, I have to say that I agree with your point of view in regards to NN, nice to see you don't walk in lockstep with Trump 100% of the time, unlike IDH.

#2, ASEA, your attack on me was uncalled for since until this thread you usually spew the Trump agenda with few exceptions.

#3 It seems that the drive to have me banned has failed.
Seahawks4Ever
Legacy
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Re: net neutrality

Postby Largent80 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:52 am

Seahawks4Ever wrote:#1. ASEA, I have to say that I agree with your point of view in regards to NN, nice to see you don't walk in lockstep with Trump 100% of the time, unlike IDH.

#2, ASEA, your attack on me was uncalled for since until this thread you usually spew the Trump agenda with few exceptions.

#3 It seems that the drive to have me banned has failed.


Look, I hate Rump and I have made no attempts to hide it here, but does every conversation have to be about that ASS?

That's what he wants you know, people to hate each other and even him. When y'all keep it going you are feeding the biggest troll in the history of trolls.

Get back on the topic.
User avatar
Largent80
Legacy
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 1:38 pm
Location: Magnolia, Texas

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:36 pm

burrrton wrote:After reading, it's what I thought- "net neutrality" is government price control. "EVERYBODY PAYS THE SAME" means you (with your one-page website) will pay the same as Google, not that Google will pay the same as you.

It didn't help anybody in NYC (except landlords) and it won't help the internet. Should be gotten rid of yesterday.


It's not price controls. Utilities are still market driven according to the cost of delivery. It's very different from rent control. Then again I don't expect you to read on many subjects that deeply. You''re not the type to do so. You would rather believe dogma or data.

And you and I are done again. You're too lacking in education to debate with. You'er a soundbyte conservative that doesn't enjoy delving too much behind generalized dogma for how things work.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:44 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:The internet did NOT come from the government, not any more that it was invented by Al Gore. And putting it under the control of billionaires and corporations is bad for everyone but those billionaires and corporations.

Net neutrality is essential. We don't need state run internet any more than we need a state run media.


IDHawkman,

What C-bob needs to know is that net neutrality does not mean government owned. It also does not mean price controls. We've had Net Neutrality for ages, internet competition is chugging along just fine. All net neutrality does is ensure the roads the internet travels on remain open for all. It's not this insane, government controlled legislation with price controls that you and burrton are trying to paint it as.

You need to do more reading on what Comcast, Viacom, Charter, and other ISPs own. There is very much an intention to use ISP control to leverage into other businesses creating a Walmart type of situation on the Internet intent on creating larger and larger businesses that control more and more of the Internet. I'm not sure how you see that as good for competition.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:15 pm

I'll post the net neutrality wiki page for those want a starting point for this complex topic. Whether or not net neutrality stands, the internet should not change much for the consumer. If anti-competitive practices by service providers occur, they will eventually be addressed. People will be watching how this plays out. If it plays out badly for the consumer and big companies with money, they will fight back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

Give it a read. This will allow you to learn about elements of net neutrality that may be relevant to your position. Media companies are growing larger and larger and controlling more and more content including news delivery. This is why you can't much trust the news any longer. You should always be delving deeper to learn. News is now corporate driven, politically biased, and generally delivered with an agenda.

Net neutrality is also a necessary part of a free press. If huge media companies are able to limit your access to information by controlling what you can access and at what speed, that's another nail in the coffin where corporations and big government are burying Lady Liberty.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:27 am

One last comment. Once a wireless option for Internet delivery matches the fiber networks (and they're getting closer), net neutrality becomes unnecessary. Satellite technology is improving. Once a company can put satellites into space that beam data all around the world, we'll have unfettered competition for internet service. ISPs will have to compete for customers around the globe against anyone with enough money to launch some satellites. There are companies working on making satellite deployment very cheap. At that point it won't matter if ISPs own content because they'll be forced to compete for fast internet service and won't be able to block or throttle data from competitors if customers want it or they'll just find another global provider to get their service from.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:31 am

Aseahawkfan wrote:One last comment. Once a wireless option for Internet delivery matches the fiber networks (and they're getting closer), net neutrality becomes unnecessary. Satellite technology is improving. Once a company can put satellites into space that beam data all around the world, we'll have unfettered competition for internet service. ISPs will have to compete for customers around the globe against anyone with enough money to launch some satellites. There are companies working on making satellite deployment very cheap. At that point it won't matter if ISPs own content because they'll be forced to compete for fast internet service and won't be able to block or throttle data from competitors if customers want it or they'll just find another global provider to get their service from.

Exactly my point about the free market working. Maybe the FCC chairman knows a little more than the general populace about what's coming. Getting rid of Net Neutrality will enhance the incentive for the research to be completed and deployed.

I just can't believe that the Internet grew to what it was in 2015 giving rise to such global behemoths such as Google, Facebook, etc but now needs to be regulated in order to make it fair. Just an oxy-moron to me.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:58 pm

idhawkman wrote:Exactly my point about the free market working. Maybe the FCC chairman knows a little more than the general populace about what's coming. Getting rid of Net Neutrality will enhance the incentive for the research to be completed and deployed.

I just can't believe that the Internet grew to what it was in 2015 giving rise to such global behemoths such as Google, Facebook, etc but now needs to be regulated in order to make it fair. Just an oxy-moron to me.


There is the fact that the ISPs started engaging in anti-competitive behaviors against competitors like throttling or limiting data, while launching competing services. I understand the concern in the short-term. Fiber networks are far superior for internet access to DSL and cellular networks. There was a lot of competition during the early stages of internet deployment for fiber networks. There were at least five or six companies trying to build fiber networks for internet competition. The phone companies like Verizon and AT&T were originally going to let other companies build out DSL networks over their infrastructure. The big cable and phone companies decided to do it themselves. Fiber start ups couldn't compete with a companies that already had huge fiber cable networks built out and phone companies with an already existing infrastructure.

The new FCC chairman wants to let the FTC prosecute anti-competitive business violations like throttling data. That may work. Personally I'd prefer the internet service providers disentangle content production from internet service. It's too much of a temptation to use your fiber network to wipe out content competitors like Microsoft did leveraging Windows to dominate so many aspects of the software industry. I hope cellular technology upgrades fast enough to make the competitive advantage obsolete. With companies like Google with Youtube and Amazon with their streaming service competing, money will be there to fight for bandwidth equality.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:43 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:The phone companies like Verizon and AT&T were originally going to let other companies build out DSL networks over their infrastructure. The big cable and phone companies decided to do it themselves. Fiber start ups couldn't compete with a companies that already had huge fiber cable networks built out and phone companies with an already existing infrastructure.

Actually, that is not true. I worked 8 years on the AT&T wholesale team and we sold our backbone to any other ISP or network that wanted to pay for it. We even undersold our our retail account teams. Reality is that the main backbone that the internet runs on is AT&T's backbone and other ISPs buy bandwidth on it now. The edge is what is different.

I remember getting in a lot of trouble when Dave Dorman (CEO and President of AT&T at the time) announced that AT&T was being sold to SBC who also bought out Bell South a short time later because I said it was a dumb move at the time. I believe it was in 2003 that this happened. The reason I said it was a dumb move was because AT&T had just built 30 data centers in the U.S. at the cost of approx. $500M each (total of $15B tied up in data centers). The price tag for AT&T in that sale was $16B for the global operation. Business, retail, data centers, wholesales, the entire shooting match. Plus we had like $8B in cash in the bank and our debt had been paid down from $56B 2 years prior to like $6B. Now Dorman got a golden parachute for the deal of about $32M for selling out the way he did but the real strategy was totally missed at that time. Here's what I said should have happened. NOTE: Once SBC bought out AT&T and Bell south, the local access was reduced to just 22 states that both of them were prominent in. SBC and Bell South were LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) that had the wire in the ground to the homes and businesses but not the backbone. That's why they wanted AT&T. What should have happened is AT&T go after content to put in their Datacenters. Music, movies, apps, backup capabilites, Disaster recovery, virtual servers, etc. etc, etc. Then tell all the local exchange carriers, mobile, cable and other access carriers that we don't care how you connect with us, just connect with us and we'll serve the content. This would have opened up all 50 states and worldwide markets to AT&T. Instead, they limited AT&T to just those 22 states and only the LECs in those states because who would want to benefit the local access competitor in those states? e.g. Time warner, comcast, verizon, etc.

Lo and behold, I was the odd man out though. The establishment in AT&T couldn't wait to get back to the glory days of the 80's and early 90s of selling local access again and I was then put on the outside looking in. Nevertheless, the local access sales never really materialized for the embeded lifelong AT&Ters because the technology had moved on and they no longer had a monopoly on homes access to the cloud. Satellite, cable, wimax and other technologies had replaced their monopoly. Now it seems that AT&T is finally recognizing the strategy that I had envisioned so many years ago. But this is not the only time they came around to my vision of the way the network should operate.

While in the wholesale division, I designed the T-mobile network that AT&T offered to buy in 2009 for Billions of dollars. AT&T wanted that network so bad that they put up $2B that T-mobile would get if the deal fell through for any reason. A few months later, it fell through when AT&T backed out for no reason. Probably because they found my design documents and realized they already had the network they needed just needed to add a few backbone routers to duplicate the services. What's funny is that T-mobile offered to buy out anyone's contract no matter how much it cost if they switched to T-mobile. (I have to admit, this made me laugh that they used AT&T's forfeited funds to buy AT&T's cusotmers away from them).

I have built many Sprint, IBM and other networks as an AT&T employee in the past. Many of the designs were bid against our retail business and consumer teams, too. The only network I didn't build for was Verizon and that's because they bought MCI as soon as SBC bought AT&T.

The new FCC chairman wants to let the FTC prosecute anti-competitive business violations like throttling data. That may work. Personally I'd prefer the internet service providers disentangle content production from internet service. It's too much of a temptation to use your fiber network to wipe out content competitors like Microsoft did leveraging Windows to dominate so many aspects of the software industry. I hope cellular technology upgrades fast enough to make the competitive advantage obsolete. With companies like Google with Youtube and Amazon with their streaming service competing, money will be there to fight for bandwidth equality.

Not to mention the repatriation of the $Ts of stranded offshore if the tax bill goes through.

Note: our cell companies are probably the worst in the world. Countries that entered into the cell market later installed newer technology than what we had deployed in the early days. ripping out the old for a wholesale changeout is unreasonable since most people would have to upgrade their devices. So we in the U.S. have had to gradually change our technology over time and we are still much behind the ROW.

One thing to remember, Microsoft for all the shortcomings must be remembered for what they did in the market for standardization. Remember Vines, and all the other incompatible networks? It was Microsoft that set the standard for NIC access to the NDIS standard. That gave them the "in" to the OS, etc. but those of us in networking in the early days remember the incompatibility of the different protocol stacks that existed back then.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:50 pm

idhawkman wrote:Actually, that is not true. I worked 8 years on the AT&T wholesale team and we sold our backbone to any other ISP or network that wanted to pay for it. We even undersold our our retail account teams. Reality is that the main backbone that the internet runs on is AT&T's backbone and other ISPs buy bandwidth on it now. The edge is what is different.

I remember getting in a lot of trouble when Dave Dorman (CEO and President of AT&T at the time) announced that AT&T was being sold to SBC who also bought out Bell South a short time later because I said it was a dumb move at the time. I believe it was in 2003 that this happened. The reason I said it was a dumb move was because AT&T had just built 30 data centers in the U.S. at the cost of approx. $500M each (total of $15B tied up in data centers). The price tag for AT&T in that sale was $16B for the global operation. Business, retail, data centers, wholesales, the entire shooting match. Plus we had like $8B in cash in the bank and our debt had been paid down from $56B 2 years prior to like $6B. Now Dorman got a golden parachute for the deal of about $32M for selling out the way he did but the real strategy was totally missed at that time. Here's what I said should have happened. NOTE: Once SBC bought out AT&T and Bell south, the local access was reduced to just 22 states that both of them were prominent in. SBC and Bell South were LECs (Local Exchange Carriers) that had the wire in the ground to the homes and businesses but not the backbone. That's why they wanted AT&T. What should have happened is AT&T go after content to put in their Datacenters. Music, movies, apps, backup capabilites, Disaster recovery, virtual servers, etc. etc, etc. Then tell all the local exchange carriers, mobile, cable and other access carriers that we don't care how you connect with us, just connect with us and we'll serve the content. This would have opened up all 50 states and worldwide markets to AT&T. Instead, they limited AT&T to just those 22 states and only the LECs in those states because who would want to benefit the local access competitor in those states? e.g. Time warner, comcast, verizon, etc.

Lo and behold, I was the odd man out though. The establishment in AT&T couldn't wait to get back to the glory days of the 80's and early 90s of selling local access again and I was then put on the outside looking in. Nevertheless, the local access sales never really materialized for the embeded lifelong AT&Ters because the technology had moved on and they no longer had a monopoly on homes access to the cloud. Satellite, cable, wimax and other technologies had replaced their monopoly. Now it seems that AT&T is finally recognizing the strategy that I had envisioned so many years ago. But this is not the only time they came around to my vision of the way the network should operate.

While in the wholesale division, I designed the T-mobile network that AT&T offered to buy in 2009 for Billions of dollars. AT&T wanted that network so bad that they put up $2B that T-mobile would get if the deal fell through for any reason. A few months later, it fell through when AT&T backed out for no reason. Probably because they found my design documents and realized they already had the network they needed just needed to add a few backbone routers to duplicate the services. What's funny is that T-mobile offered to buy out anyone's contract no matter how much it cost if they switched to T-mobile. (I have to admit, this made me laugh that they used AT&T's forfeited funds to buy AT&T's cusotmers away from them).

I have built many Sprint, IBM and other networks as an AT&T employee in the past. Many of the designs were bid against our retail business and consumer teams, too. The only network I didn't build for was Verizon and that's because they bought MCI as soon as SBC bought AT&T.


I don't know about AT&T as much as I know about Verizon. AT&T sold most of its landline phone assets and moved heavily into cellular some time back as far investor side of things. Interesting read on its data center assets. Not sure what you mean by AT&T's backbone unless you mean its initial data centers are the network everyone built out from.

What years are you talking about? Cable companies added internet to their existing cable networks superior to what could be provided over phone networks. Are you saying Comcast, Viacom,and the like had to buy their internet connectivity from AT&T? That's what it sounds like you're saying. What year was this?
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:42 pm

Aseahawkfan wrote:
I don't know about AT&T as much as I know about Verizon. AT&T sold most of its landline phone assets and moved heavily into cellular some time back as far investor side of things. Interesting read on its data center assets. Not sure what you mean by AT&T's backbone unless you mean its initial data centers are the network everyone built out from.

What years are you talking about? Cable companies added internet to their existing cable networks superior to what could be provided over phone networks. Are you saying Comcast, Viacom,and the like had to buy their internet connectivity from AT&T? That's what it sounds like you're saying. What year was this?

Great question. I may have skipped over it a bit but will hopefully clear it up here.

My years in IT was from 1989 through 2008. 89 to 97 was for government agencies - you can probably guess which ones. :)
97 to 2001 was for manufacturers like Cisco Systems and Crosscom. AT&T was from 2001 to 2008 - all in wholesale.

The backbone I talk about is the OC-192 fiber link that circled the lower 48 states. As I was leaving they had upgraded it to OC-768 speeds. All LECs, carriers of every sort (Cable, cellular, etc) connect to that backbone. That's how someone in Floriday hanging off a Bell south connection can deliver an email to me hanging off a cable network here in Idaho. Datacenters hang off the backbone with at the time, OC-48 interconnects with backups, etc. I'm sure they are at OC-192 speeds now or better.

So at a high level, this is how it works, the guys closest to the consumers (residential and business) carry the traffic to an aggregator point (the LEC for DSL or "head end" for cable companies) They have Muxing equipment to "time slice" all the connections onto a bigger trunk line to a larger aggregation point - sometimes in the same LEC depending on how big the concentration of service is. From there, it is muxed again into a larger trunk line that is connected to the backbone. The data centers are hanging off the same backbone and gets serves up websites, music, movies, etc to the consumer.

Sometimes the bigger carriers have large trunk lines going into the data centers and every data center has different service providers lines coming into it. So one of AT&T's data centers would have a minimum of 3 other carrier's trunks coming into it for redundancy and backup purposes. The same would be true for any other carrier's datacenters. So since they are all interconnected now the key to the game is to get other carrier's traffic off of your own network as quick as possible. E.g. the destination is always what dictates who's traffic it is.

So to put this in perspective, if I'm connected to Comcast's local access cable service and I'm sending traffic to Verizon's data center, then comcast would get my data stream off of their lines and onto AT&T's or Time warner's lines as quick as possible and they would get it off their network as quick as possible until it gets to Verizon's trunks who would then be responsible for transporting it the rest of the way to the data center. Now it really gets interesting when the return route for my traffic doesn't follow the same route because Verizon is trying to get it off their network as quick as possilbe, etc, etc etc until it gets to comcasts network and rides that the rest of the way.

Many lawsuits have been files and there are teams of people monitoring competitor carriers for trying to "ride the light" of someone else as long as they can without taking the data on their network. And there are more teams trying to figure out how to get the traffic off their network as quick as possilbe,too. It's quite a show when you really get to understand it. So my job at AT&T wholesale was to sell (really it is renting) parts of our network to other carriers so they could expand their network without the heavy up front infrastructure expense. An interesting side note here is what Bernie Ebbers went to jail for when he was MCI's CEO. He would buy an OC-3 trunnk from AT&T, sell it to Fiber Pipe or some other LEC, then buy it back from them and sell it to Verizon. All making it look like his network was growing leaps and bounds but it really wasn't. I could go on but...

Now you know why I say net neutrality is bunk. The networks are so intertwined that rate limiting is going to happen at one of two points only. The local access which has lots of competition between DSL, Cable, Wi-max and other technologies or at a Datacenter. This has already been a long post so I wont' go into how and why the big companies want net neutrality and how that will hurt you and I but maybe if I ever meet you for a frosty beverage, I can go into it.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby makena » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:30 am

You make some very interesting points. I know that the networks are intertwined in the United States but it is interesting to get a glimpse into the industry from your perspective. I appreciate your insight and how valuable your perspective is to this conversation. Thank you and I really appreciate it.

However, I disagree with you. I would like to know why you think net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet, would hurt "you and I"? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?
Net neutrality is more than the infrastructure in the United States. This ruling will impact global communication and commerce; which I think you touched upon before.

In it's current form, FCC Title 2 or the impartial internet (net neutrality) ensures that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) can't censor, block or throttle websites. A website's speed will still be determined by server quality, how it's been coded, and so forth, but the ISP has to keep everything on a level playing field. Meanwhile, consumers can still opt for faster internet pipelines from their ISP... which I think speaks to your point more. This does not give the internet to the government and it's not price control. ISP's can charge whatever they want to access the net at a particular speed. Rolling back net neutrality is about accessing content based on preferential treatment by IPS's.

If net neutrality were to be eliminated, ISPs would be able to charge both consumers and websites for access, regardless of what infrastructure the data packets travel on. This will leave Comcast and Verizon, along with other big cable and broadband providers, the ability to charge consumers a monthly fee for internet access and charge Amazon, Netflix and any other sites what ever the ISP wants for fast lanes. This would mean that even if you paid your monthly fee for high-speed internet, if one of these websites didn't have a deal with your ISP they will be throttled or blocked. Again, this has more to do with how data is accessed by the consumer and less to do with how networks mitigate data packets on their respective infrastructure.

Here is a simple superficial example of what will most likely happen first:
Comcast has a service called Streampix which is a competitor to Netflix. If net neutrality (an impartial internet) is rolled back, It would be in Comcasts best interest to gate, block, throttle Netflix in favor for Streampix. Personally, I don't like Streampix and I find that Netflix is vastly superior. If FCC Title 2 is abolished, this would 'hurt' me and fellow consumers who favor Netflix over Streampix or similar services.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation, which seeks to ensure the web serves humanity by establishing it as a global public good and a basic right, stats some interesting points at this link here ---> https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0.

Here is tidbit about Sir Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Foundation website:

"The inventor of the World Wide Web and one of Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Important People of the 20th Century’, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a scientist and academic whose visionary and innovative work has transformed almost every aspect of our lives. Having invented the Web in 1989 while working at CERN and subsequently working to ensure it was made freely available to all, Berners-Lee is now dedicated to enhancing and protecting the web’s future."

I enjoy my freedom and ability to think critically about various topics; regardless if I want to believe the facts or not. Truths and facts inherently do not care about an individuals believes or faith. The internet affords me to easily access content that I would not normally have access to a decade ago and helps me discover what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls "Emergent Truth". Check out this interesting Video here ---> https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo.

Lets try not to lose what we take for granted.

Mak
User avatar
makena
Legacy
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am
Location: Burien, WA

Re: net neutrality

Postby burrrton » Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:37 pm

net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet


:) Both euphemisms for "government control".

Read this starting on page 321 for Ajit Pai's take on it, which I think is a reasonable one:

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attac ... 5-24A1.pdf
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby makena » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:14 pm

Burrrton,

That is an interesting take indeed. Did you by chance review the executive summary at the beginning? Did you review the views from the other commissioners?
Here is an excerpt from the PDF link you provided. Section II Executive Summary Part 8:

"Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers
hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t
like. The 2010 rules helped to deter such conduct while they were in effect. But, as Verizon frankly told
the court at oral argument, but for the 2010 rules, it would be exploring agreements to charge certain
content providers for priority service. Indeed, the wireless industry had a well-established record of
trying to keep applications within a carrier-controlled “walled garden” in the early days of mobile
applications. That specific practice ended when Internet Protocol (IP) created the opportunity to leap the
wall. But the Commission has continued to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices
involving blocking or degrading third-party applications.
"

Ajit Pai appeared to worked for Verizon Communications where he served as associate general counsel where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives. To me, I think his appointment to be the FCC commissioner is a conflict of interest to the consumer and benefits ISP's; specifically Verizon who has challenged net neutrality Title 2 laws. It's in the ISP's best interest to support Ajit Pai agenda so they can sell access to the internet that looks like this:

Image

I'm interested to know why you think a former lawyer for an ISP (verizon) would have the consumers best interest in mind? I'm not seeing government control. I'm seeing regulation that protects consumers. It's not price control, its prohibiting ISP's from charging for access that we already have access to. What if you have to pay to access the HawkShack after net neutrality get rolled back. No more Shack! Where were the Shack land in the above add?

Mak
User avatar
makena
Legacy
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am
Location: Burien, WA

Re: net neutrality

Postby burrrton » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:25 pm

I'm interested to know why you think a former lawyer for an ISP (verizon) would have the consumers best interest in mind?


I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other.

However, I judge his arguments on the merits, not based on who he is, and I find them persuasive.

What if you have to pay to access the HawkShack after net neutrality get rolled back. No more Shack!


That would be terrible news, and I'll acknowledge there are reasonable points on both sides. However, ultimately I trust ISPs to make better decisions for consumers than I do the government, which history tells us doesn't give two squirts about consumers.

[edit]

Bah- the more I read about it, the more confused I get. I'm going to quit rapping about it until I feel I've got a better grasp of the implications.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 2983
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:45 pm

idhawkman wrote:Great question. I may have skipped over it a bit but will hopefully clear it up here.

My years in IT was from 1989 through 2008. 89 to 97 was for government agencies - you can probably guess which ones. :)
97 to 2001 was for manufacturers like Cisco Systems and Crosscom. AT&T was from 2001 to 2008 - all in wholesale.

The backbone I talk about is the OC-192 fiber link that circled the lower 48 states. As I was leaving they had upgraded it to OC-768 speeds. All LECs, carriers of every sort (Cable, cellular, etc) connect to that backbone. That's how someone in Floriday hanging off a Bell south connection can deliver an email to me hanging off a cable network here in Idaho. Datacenters hang off the backbone with at the time, OC-48 interconnects with backups, etc. I'm sure they are at OC-192 speeds now or better.

So at a high level, this is how it works, the guys closest to the consumers (residential and business) carry the traffic to an aggregator point (the LEC for DSL or "head end" for cable companies) They have Muxing equipment to "time slice" all the connections onto a bigger trunk line to a larger aggregation point - sometimes in the same LEC depending on how big the concentration of service is. From there, it is muxed again into a larger trunk line that is connected to the backbone. The data centers are hanging off the same backbone and gets serves up websites, music, movies, etc to the consumer.

Sometimes the bigger carriers have large trunk lines going into the data centers and every data center has different service providers lines coming into it. So one of AT&T's data centers would have a minimum of 3 other carrier's trunks coming into it for redundancy and backup purposes. The same would be true for any other carrier's datacenters. So since they are all interconnected now the key to the game is to get other carrier's traffic off of your own network as quick as possible. E.g. the destination is always what dictates who's traffic it is.

So to put this in perspective, if I'm connected to Comcast's local access cable service and I'm sending traffic to Verizon's data center, then comcast would get my data stream off of their lines and onto AT&T's or Time warner's lines as quick as possible and they would get it off their network as quick as possible until it gets to Verizon's trunks who would then be responsible for transporting it the rest of the way to the data center. Now it really gets interesting when the return route for my traffic doesn't follow the same route because Verizon is trying to get it off their network as quick as possilbe, etc, etc etc until it gets to comcasts network and rides that the rest of the way.

Many lawsuits have been files and there are teams of people monitoring competitor carriers for trying to "ride the light" of someone else as long as they can without taking the data on their network. And there are more teams trying to figure out how to get the traffic off their network as quick as possilbe,too. It's quite a show when you really get to understand it. So my job at AT&T wholesale was to sell (really it is renting) parts of our network to other carriers so they could expand their network without the heavy up front infrastructure expense. An interesting side note here is what Bernie Ebbers went to jail for when he was MCI's CEO. He would buy an OC-3 trunnk from AT&T, sell it to Fiber Pipe or some other LEC, then buy it back from them and sell it to Verizon. All making it look like his network was growing leaps and bounds but it really wasn't. I could go on but...

Now you know why I say net neutrality is bunk. The networks are so intertwined that rate limiting is going to happen at one of two points only. The local access which has lots of competition between DSL, Cable, Wi-max and other technologies or at a Datacenter. This has already been a long post so I wont' go into how and why the big companies want net neutrality and how that will hurt you and I but maybe if I ever meet you for a frosty beverage, I can go into it.


Hmm. Maybe I'll support the FTC option for anti-competitive practices. It sounds like there are so many big players in the business with connecting networks that it is unnecessary to throttle data as that would only encourage the other big networks to screw the other guy over. FTC can handle it if large collusion between the big companies occur.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Aseahawkfan » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:13 pm

makena wrote:You make some very interesting points. I know that the networks are intertwined in the United States but it is interesting to get a glimpse into the industry from your perspective. I appreciate your insight and how valuable your perspective is to this conversation. Thank you and I really appreciate it.

However, I disagree with you. I would like to know why you think net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet, would hurt "you and I"? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?
Net neutrality is more than the infrastructure in the United States. This ruling will impact global communication and commerce; which I think you touched upon before.

In it's current form, FCC Title 2 or the impartial internet (net neutrality) ensures that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) can't censor, block or throttle websites. A website's speed will still be determined by server quality, how it's been coded, and so forth, but the ISP has to keep everything on a level playing field. Meanwhile, consumers can still opt for faster internet pipelines from their ISP... which I think speaks to your point more. This does not give the internet to the government and it's not price control. ISP's can charge whatever they want to access the net at a particular speed. Rolling back net neutrality is about accessing content based on preferential treatment by IPS's.

If net neutrality were to be eliminated, ISPs would be able to charge both consumers and websites for access, regardless of what infrastructure the data packets travel on. This will leave Comcast and Verizon, along with other big cable and broadband providers, the ability to charge consumers a monthly fee for internet access and charge Amazon, Netflix and any other sites what ever the ISP wants for fast lanes. This would mean that even if you paid your monthly fee for high-speed internet, if one of these websites didn't have a deal with your ISP they will be throttled or blocked. Again, this has more to do with how data is accessed by the consumer and less to do with how networks mitigate data packets on their respective infrastructure.

Here is a simple superficial example of what will most likely happen first:
Comcast has a service called Streampix which is a competitor to Netflix. If net neutrality (an impartial internet) is rolled back, It would be in Comcasts best interest to gate, block, throttle Netflix in favor for Streampix. Personally, I don't like Streampix and I find that Netflix is vastly superior. If FCC Title 2 is abolished, this would 'hurt' me and fellow consumers who favor Netflix over Streampix or similar services.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation, which seeks to ensure the web serves humanity by establishing it as a global public good and a basic right, stats some interesting points at this link here ---> https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0.

Here is tidbit about Sir Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Foundation website:

"The inventor of the World Wide Web and one of Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Important People of the 20th Century’, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a scientist and academic whose visionary and innovative work has transformed almost every aspect of our lives. Having invented the Web in 1989 while working at CERN and subsequently working to ensure it was made freely available to all, Berners-Lee is now dedicated to enhancing and protecting the web’s future."

I enjoy my freedom and ability to think critically about various topics; regardless if I want to believe the facts or not. Truths and facts inherently do not care about an individuals believes or faith. The internet affords me to easily access content that I would not normally have access to a decade ago and helps me discover what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls "Emergent Truth". Check out this interesting Video here ---> https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo.

Lets try not to lose what we take for granted.

Mak


The new FCC Chairman wants to let the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) handle anti-competitive practices like throttling data and the like now from what I read. That might work.

I share your concerns at the moment given how ISPs are zoned. Where I live right now my options for Internet service are Comcast or DSL/Cellular and Comcast is the vastly superior option for bandwidith. I'd like IDhawkman to tell me how I make Comcast provide me equal service when I don't have any option to buy service equivalent to what Comcast provides. I can't buy Viacom or Charters in my area. Cable providers cover regions, not the entire globe. There is no way for me to force Comcast to stop throttling data unless I am willing to accept inferior DSL/cellular service from a competitor.

That's why I said once cellular technology matches fiber, I'd be willing to do away with net neutrality. Once I can choose Verizon, At&T, Dish, or any of the many cellular providers, then net neutrality becomes unncesssary and I can vote with my wallet. If I find out AT&T is throttling data to crush a competitor, then i go to Verizon or T-mobile or any of the many cellular competitors. There isn't much competition for cable networks right now and they are the vastly superior Internet option.

So IDhawkman, how do we make Comcast pay if they are the only one providing cable level internet service in our area? I'm all for consumers voting with their wallet, but if we can't vote with our wallet than a government option may be necessary. Cable providers seem to have a monopoly on areas due to how they are zoned.
Aseahawkfan
Legacy
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 12:38 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:46 pm

makena wrote:You make some very interesting points. I know that the networks are intertwined in the United States but it is interesting to get a glimpse into the industry from your perspective. I appreciate your insight and how valuable your perspective is to this conversation. Thank you and I really appreciate it.

However, I disagree with you. I would like to know why you think net neutrality or in other words an impartial internet, would hurt "you and I"? Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more?
Net neutrality is more than the infrastructure in the United States. This ruling will impact global communication and commerce; which I think you touched upon before.

In it's current form, FCC Title 2 or the impartial internet (net neutrality) ensures that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) can't censor, block or throttle websites. A website's speed will still be determined by server quality, how it's been coded, and so forth, but the ISP has to keep everything on a level playing field. Meanwhile, consumers can still opt for faster internet pipelines from their ISP... which I think speaks to your point more. This does not give the internet to the government and it's not price control. ISP's can charge whatever they want to access the net at a particular speed. Rolling back net neutrality is about accessing content based on preferential treatment by IPS's.

If net neutrality were to be eliminated, ISPs would be able to charge both consumers and websites for access, regardless of what infrastructure the data packets travel on. This will leave Comcast and Verizon, along with other big cable and broadband providers, the ability to charge consumers a monthly fee for internet access and charge Amazon, Netflix and any other sites what ever the ISP wants for fast lanes. This would mean that even if you paid your monthly fee for high-speed internet, if one of these websites didn't have a deal with your ISP they will be throttled or blocked. Again, this has more to do with how data is accessed by the consumer and less to do with how networks mitigate data packets on their respective infrastructure.

Here is a simple superficial example of what will most likely happen first:
Comcast has a service called Streampix which is a competitor to Netflix. If net neutrality (an impartial internet) is rolled back, It would be in Comcasts best interest to gate, block, throttle Netflix in favor for Streampix. Personally, I don't like Streampix and I find that Netflix is vastly superior. If FCC Title 2 is abolished, this would 'hurt' me and fellow consumers who favor Netflix over Streampix or similar services.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, a Founding Director of the World Wide Web Foundation, which seeks to ensure the web serves humanity by establishing it as a global public good and a basic right, stats some interesting points at this link here ---> https://youtu.be/5Gh0NIQ3yd0.

Here is tidbit about Sir Tim Berners-Lee from the World Wide Web Foundation website:

"The inventor of the World Wide Web and one of Time Magazine’s ‘100 Most Important People of the 20th Century’, Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a scientist and academic whose visionary and innovative work has transformed almost every aspect of our lives. Having invented the Web in 1989 while working at CERN and subsequently working to ensure it was made freely available to all, Berners-Lee is now dedicated to enhancing and protecting the web’s future."

I enjoy my freedom and ability to think critically about various topics; regardless if I want to believe the facts or not. Truths and facts inherently do not care about an individuals believes or faith. The internet affords me to easily access content that I would not normally have access to a decade ago and helps me discover what Neil deGrasse Tyson calls "Emergent Truth". Check out this interesting Video here ---> https://youtu.be/8MqTOEospfo.

Lets try not to lose what we take for granted.

Mak


I haven't stopped long enough to answer you yet but I will eventually. Working some long hours right now.

In the meantime, think of it this way.

Should Boeing pay the same amount and get the same amount of access to I5 as my small marketing agency gets to access I84? Who should shoulder the burden for that extra infrastructure to support Boeing? All of us or Boeing? Should it be everyone in Washington State, the U.S. Seattle, Everett???? Exactly who should pay for the extra infrastructure to support them?

See I think if Boeing wants their employees to be happy, they'd gladly pay for more roads to get their employees and sales and customers to and from the main artery of transportation. But in Net Neutralities world, that's unfair. They are allowing them to buy more "bandwidth" and get faster access than I have when I have to fight through 30 minutes of traffic to get 6 miles to I84.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby makena » Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:02 am

I hear you about the long hours. I will be working most of the weekend migrating a website...

Regarding our discussion...Interesting analogy, idhawkman.

I would think that the roads Boeing would build will allow greater access (better servers and pipes)to their site (website) connecting to larger road networks (internet) where other traffic occurs, more people use and open to all, not just Boeing. Where you live geographically is like having DLS over broadband. So, you experience a slower commute or speed cruising the net. What if not only would you have a slower commute, but then had to pay to have it. That is what the IPS's want to control. Look at this image below. It shows who is in support vs against:

Image

At this glimpse alone, I would argue that there is a red flag when so few want to control something so big and where so many appose that control. This leads to assumption about activities from the ISP's that the common Joe does not have visibility to.

In the executive summary of the 2015 title 2 release, it states:

"Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers
hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t
like.
"

This appears to be a proven fact and stated in the FCC Title 2 release. If it's a known truth, then I'm left to ask why so few want to get rid of net neutrality? To make more money off of content we currently have access to. Don't forget that Ajit Pai was a former Verizon Attorney providing counsel regarding regulations. I see an inherent conflict of interest with Mr. Pai.

I'm glad that I can speak with you about this Idahawkman, as I know you have experience and viability that others don't.

Mak
User avatar
makena
Legacy
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am
Location: Burien, WA

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Sat Dec 02, 2017 6:56 am

makena wrote:I hear you about the long hours. I will be working most of the weekend migrating a website...

Regarding our discussion...Interesting analogy, idhawkman.

I would think that the roads Boeing would build will allow greater access (better servers and pipes)to their site (website) connecting to larger road networks (internet) where other traffic occurs, more people use and open to all, not just Boeing. Where you live geographically is like having DLS over broadband. So, you experience a slower commute or speed cruising the net. What if not only would you have a slower commute, but then had to pay to have it. That is what the IPS's want to control. Look at this image below. It shows who is in support vs against:

Image

At this glimpse alone, I would argue that there is a red flag when so few want to control something so big and where so many appose that control. This leads to assumption about activities from the ISP's that the common Joe does not have visibility to.

In the executive summary of the 2015 title 2 release, it states:

"Threats to Internet openness remain today. The record reflects that broadband providers
hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they don’t
like.
"

This appears to be a proven fact and stated in the FCC Title 2 release. If it's a known truth, then I'm left to ask why so few want to get rid of net neutrality? To make more money off of content we currently have access to. Don't forget that Ajit Pai was a former Verizon Attorney providing counsel regarding regulations. I see an inherent conflict of interest with Mr. Pai.

I'm glad that I can speak with you about this Idahawkman, as I know you have experience and viability that others don't.

Mak


Good talking with you too Mak.

It makes sense that so many of those companies don't want to get rid of it. I don't want toll roads either. I'd rather have the entire public to pay for my road that I use all the time instead of having to pay for use of it. So in other words, Facebook, twitter, etc. want to be able to limit what content they serve you and suppress what they don't want to serve you in the meantime they want everyone to bear the financial burden for their higher demand and custom network needs instead of buying it themselves.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby Sox-n-hawks » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:16 am

Not trying to start anything here. I would like to pose one question. See, I'm not at all knowledgable about Net Neutrality, nor do I claim to be. It simply isn't something I've ever taken the time to learn about. Maybe I should. I'm not looking to argue or get flamed, but am genuinely interested in hearing a bit of critical thinking.

The question is this:

Would the repeal of net neutrality laws help reduce the over reliance on electronic devices in modern America, and what would the impacts be? I don't remember the last time I saw a phone book, or someone using an Atlas.
User avatar
Sox-n-hawks
Legacy
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:27 am
Location: Pacific NW

Re: net neutrality

Postby idhawkman » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:49 am

Sox-n-hawks wrote:Not trying to start anything here. I would like to pose one question. See, I'm not at all knowledgable about Net Neutrality, nor do I claim to be. It simply isn't something I've ever taken the time to learn about. Maybe I should. I'm not looking to argue or get flamed, but am genuinely interested in hearing a bit of critical thinking.

The question is this:

Would the repeal of net neutrality laws help reduce the over reliance on electronic devices in modern America, and what would the impacts be? I don't remember the last time I saw a phone book, or someone using an Atlas.


No Sox. It will have no impact on any of those issues. They will survive and continue either way the net neutrality goes.

BTW, I used the phone book last week. My ladder was just a little short so I used it on the top step which made it just high enough to lock my flat screen t.v. on the wall of my hot tub area.

Yes, posters, you heard that right. The cold weather created a lot of steam in the Seahawk cave which made the old CRT TV short out. I didn't even try to troubleshoot it. Just tossed it and installed two flat screens. One I can see from the dry sauna and one I can see from the hot tub. Yes, the kegerator is working perfectly still. Got a little too much foam coming out for my liking on the second and subsequent pours of the day but other than that, its great. The first pour is always just right.
User avatar
idhawkman
Legacy
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:00 am

Re: net neutrality

Postby makena » Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:17 am

Flat screens and nice pours... I'm envious.
nice...

mak
User avatar
makena
Legacy
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:51 am
Location: Burien, WA


Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest