Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
IIRC, the FCC also put rules into place preventing state/local governments from implementing their own version of NN, so that's a bust idea considering how much money the various ISPs will throw at lawyers and what not to fight any sort of public internet like chattanooga has.
Can you get a source for that? I don't see how that would be possible since the Federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce so I don't see how the FCC can dictate how states and municipalities regulate ISPs within their own borders.
The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
It starts on page 116 of the FCC's repeal, and continues onto page 117: "Just as the Title II Order promised to “exercise our preemption authority to preclude states from imposing regulations on broadband service that are inconsistent” with the federal regulatory scheme, we conclude that we should exercise our authority to preempt any state or local requirements that are inconsistent with the federal deregulatory approach we adopt today. We therefore preempt any state or local measures that would effectively impose rules or requirements that we have repealed or decided to refrain from imposing in this order or that would impose more stringent requirements for any aspect of broadband service that we address in this order." Among other things, we thereby preempt any so-called “economic” or “public utility-type” regulations, including common-carriage requirements akin to those found in Title II of the Act and its implementing rules, as well as other rules or requirements that we repeal or refrain from imposing today because they could pose an obstacle to or place an undue burden on the provision of broadband Internet access service and conflict with the deregulatory approach we adopt today."
I also removed some of the citation numbers there (729, 730, and 731 for those interested) for ease of reading, and the preceding (paragraph, I think) numbers (194 and 195) for the same reason.
The FCC ability to preempt state laws regarding municipal broadband networks has already been struck down in Federal court. I don't think the new preemption proposed by the FCC will fare any better when it's challenged by states or municipalities.
The Federal Communications Commission has lost in an attempt to preempt state laws that restrict the growth of municipal broadband networks.
The FCC in February 2015 voted to block laws in North Carolina and Tennessee that prevent municipal broadband providers from expanding outside their territories. The FCC, led by Chairman Tom Wheeler, claimed it could preempt the laws because Congress authorizes the commission to promote telecom competition by removing barriers to investment.
But this was a risky legal argument, as the FCC has no specific authority to overturn state laws. Officials in both states appealed the FCC decision, and today a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the states (full text).
"The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities," judges wrote. "This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed."
The decision was essentially unanimous, with judges John Rogers, Joseph Hood, and Helene White all voting to reverse the FCC's order. White concurred in part and dissented in part, writing a separate opinion to address a few issues not covered in the majority opinion.
Ah, ok hadn't heard that, thanks! However, unless they've changed the wording in the repeal again, there'll need to be another appeal to get it changed.
Yes. The NN repeal was passed but not implemented yet. Once the implementation date comes around I expect at least a few states or municipalities to challenge it in Federal court and then we'll see how this precedent holds up. The court can't undo the NN repeal but it can strike down all of the preemptive aspects regarding states and municipalities as being a clear instance of jurisdictional overreach. I'm not a lawyer or anything close to an expert on FCC regulations but just reading section 706a and reading the FCC argument in the repeal that they have preemptive rights over states seems tenuous at best. 706a is the section that states that the FCC and state regulatory commissions will work to encourage ISPs to provide high speed internet to schools. It never establishes that the FCC has the power to dictate to state regulatory commissions how they are allowed to encourage ISPs to provide high speed internet to schools.
Here is the text of section 706a:
Spoiler:
Section 706a
SEC. 706. ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCENTIVES. (a) IN GENERAL- The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
Here is the argument in the repeal that claims that section 706a doesn't prevent the FCC from preempting state and municipal NN type restrictions on ISPs:
Spoiler:
731
We are not persuaded that preemption is contrary to section 706(a) of the 1996 Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1302(a), insofar
as that provision directs state commissions (as well as this Commission) to promote the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability.
See, e.g.
, NARUC Comments at 2; Public Knowledge Reply at 27. For one thing,
as discussed
infra
, we conclude that section 706 does not constitute an affirmative grant of regulatory authority, but
instead simply provides guidance to this Commission and the state commissions on how to use any authority
conferred by other provisions of federal and state law.
See infra
Part IV.B.3.a. For another, nothing in this order
forecloses state regulatory commissions from promoting the goals set forth in section 706(a) through measures that
we do not preempt here, such as by promoting access to rights-of-way under state law, encouraging broadband
investment and deployment through state tax policy, and administering other generally applicable state laws.
Finally, insofar as we conclude that section 706’s goals of encouraging broadband deployment and removing
barriers to infrastructure investment are best served by preempting state regulation, we find that section 706
supports
(rather than prohibits) the use of preemption here.
They should hold a referendum on something like this.
We vote for US Representative (HOUSE) and US Senate every 2 years... and President every 4. That's our "referendum".
So you will be voting Democrat to ensure that Net Neutrality is brought into law?
You know that electing representatives to represent a district on every issue within a two year term is not the same as a referendum on a single issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/06 22:08:30
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Ashiraya wrote: Netflix is taking it to court. I can't wait.
They should hold a referendum on something like this.
We don't have national referendums. Only on the State, County, and Local/Municipal levels.
In order to have a national ballot, the Constitution would have to be Amended to allow for such. There has been an effort for over a decade now to do so, but nothing has come of it.
Ashiraya wrote: Netflix is taking it to court. I can't wait.
They should hold a referendum on something like this.
We don't have national referendums. Only on the State, County, and Local/Municipal levels.
In order to have a national ballot, the Constitution would have to be Amended to allow for such. There has been an effort for over a decade now to do so, but nothing has come of it.
Well, strictly speaking, we did "have a referendum" of sorts on it. It was supposed to be open for commenting. The vast majority of those comments were pro-Net Neutrality.
It's just that those comments were also filled with comments made by stolen/"appropriated" identities and deceased individuals that were all posting a very specific set of words . And rather than do the responsible thing and open up an investigation into why that was done and delay any kind of a vote...Pai pressed forward as soon as he could and refused to do anything beyond making a taxpayer funded video lambasting Net Neutrality advocates and claiming "they didn't know what they were talking about".
Thus we got something that passed (shock! gasp!) along party lines, with one specific party voting against the people and one party voting for the people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/06 22:34:07
Kanluwen wrote: It's just that those comments were also filled with comments made by stolen/"appropriated" identities and deceased individuals that were all posting a very specific set of words
Even Obama was apparently against Net Neutrality, who would have thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Even Obama was apparently against Net Neutrality, who would have thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And if you listen to some people on the internet Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi - the point is don't believe everything you see in cheap infographics or intentionally misattributed quotes.
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
And if you listen to some people on the internet Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi - the point is don't believe everything you see in cheap infographics or intentionally misattributed quotes.
DonaldJTrump wrote: I love the smell of flame wars in the morning. It smells like.... rising approval ratings.'
You can read it in either the Joker or Duke Nukem voices and he's still the Internet Troll in Chief.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Wait a bit and you might not even need to read it in the Joker's voice... Mr Hamill has already done a few reads of various tweets.
Probably getting too close to US Politics though.
In any case, the way America has set up how their internet works seems dumb.
On the other hand, I have no idea how the way the UK internet business model is really set up, except that I know that if Sky effs around with me too much I can go to BT, Virgin or Plusnet. And so on...
Compel wrote: Probably getting too close to US Politics though.
I will be one of those skeletons you find on the floor at Vault-tec and read my emails on the locked terminal near by.
US Politics visits me at work every day, even though it has to transmit itself over the internet, over the phone lines, or ride down into the dark with it's extended security detail.
We hear them, sometimes, unwholesome tomes whispering back and forth to each other in the restricted areas. What blasphemous secrets they exchange, I shudder to even imagine. 'Tekeli-li, Tekeli-li!' over and over in the depths beneath the earth.
As the lights flicker, I sometimes muse on the truth of what the mad Arab penned: "That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die"
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Even Obama was apparently against Net Neutrality, who would have thought ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And if you listen to some people on the internet Taylor Swift is secretly a Nazi - the point is don't believe everything you see in cheap infographics or intentionally misattributed quotes.
It was just one of the many faked comments, like the ones from already dead people.
Kilkrazy wrote: Net Neutrality may be better fought at the local level. It's got to be easier to elect a town council on a platform of installing a good local internet service than to elect a congress on a single issue.
Unfortunately the same vested interests that fought to prevent and then rollback Net Neutrality federally are also at work in local politics. When Fort Collins had a vote to develop its own fibre scheme, Comcast spent a million dollars to oppose it. When Louisville took up an opportunity to piggyback on the state's own plan to lay fibre, giving Louisville residents cable at a fraction of the cost, the Koch brothers Taxpayers Protection Alliance aligned with the cable networks own lobby group to fight the project. In both cases the projects got up which shows this is perhaps an issue better won at the local level. But note the second deal actually got voted down the first time, with a vote falling on party lines and the Republican majority winning, it took a second vote and a small number of Republicans to flip to win the issue. And also note that for a while Net Neutrality was winning at the Federal level, until Republican appointments to the FCC voted on party lines to end it.
So from what I can see there's one way to win on this, and whether it happens at a federal, state or local level the action remains the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: It's already pretty simple in broad strokes. ISPs shouldn't be allowed to operate monopolies in large populous regions. Having entire states or huge metro areas with only 1 ISP choice is terrible, there should be 3-4. Monopoly busting used be something the Federal govt viewed as an important integral part of regulating commerce. There should be a separation of service provider entities and content provider entities. Vertical integration can reach a point where it eliminates choice which can shrink the market to an unhealthy size that hurts consumers. This is easy stuff to see.
There's a growing idea in economics that the long term flat wages we've seen are due in large part to growing monopolies reducing the number of employers competing the competition for workers. Putting it really simply, because that's the level I actually understand it at, the old models said that a harmful monopoly would depress wage and increase prices. Prices haven't risen, so for a long time economists concluded this meant monopolies weren't a problem and something else must be causing the flat wages. But newer work has shown how prices can stay down while monopolies still exploit their power to keep wages down. It makes a lot of sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: All internet traffic is not equal though. Streaming data differs quite a bit from regular web browsing which differs from email use. The post office and UPS treat a single page of paper in an envelope differently than a huge box of books. You have some content providers (like Netflix) providing content with a QOS requirement that my ISP in very rural SC (so unfortunately satellite) did not necessarily sign up to provide.
The post office accounts for those differences by measuring size and weight. Bigger, heavier packages attract a higher charge. But the post office doesn't charge more for sending a pound of lead figures than it charges for a pound of books. And it doesn't charge more if you're sending to an address that isn't on their special list of UPS affiliates.
The internet right now has all the ability it needs to match the post office's scheme. So your argument is simply false.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The biggest issue we need to combat on the local level is removing obstacles to competition. In the article I posted previously about how Baltimore residents are stuck with only Comcast as a cable and/or internet provider for the city, it explains that Comcast isn't doing anything to keep the monopoly it's just the fact that the cost is too high for other companies to install the infrastructure to provide a competing service. Comcast already owns the infrastructure in place and they don't want to and can't be forced to lease their cable to a competitor just to lose market share, so they're enjoying a monopoly not because of any particular business practice on their end but because nobody else wants to compete with them. If states and municipalities incentivized the construction of competing ISP infrastructure by lowering the cost to do so then we'd get more competition. We don't need a lot of options but just having 3-4 ISP providers would have a similar effect to NN, in that if one ISP wants to throttle Netflix then a competitor ISP can not throttle Netflix in an effort to gain market share over the ISP that is throttling Netflix.
There used to be laws in place requiring internet providers to offer other providers he ability to piggyback on their infrastructure, at reasonable cost. That requirement was ended under the Bush admin's FCC. I can't remember if it was an FCC ruling or if it was legislation that was sunsetted. Either way, that's when we saw the disappearance of third party providers. In metro DC, for instance, it went from 17 providers to 3.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: In order to have a national ballot, the Constitution would have to be Amended to allow for such. There has been an effort for over a decade now to do so, but nothing has come of it.
You wouldn't have to have an constitutional amendment. There's is nothing stopping the government from having a voluntary questionaire that people can choose to take part in. It's just the result would only be finding a complete opinion, it wouldn't be binding and couldn't be used to force congress members and the president to pass any particular law.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/01/08 07:45:12
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
CptJake wrote: All internet traffic is not equal though. Streaming data differs quite a bit from regular web browsing which differs from email use. The post office and UPS treat a single page of paper in an envelope differently than a huge box of books. You have some content providers (like Netflix) providing content with a QOS requirement that my ISP in very rural SC (so unfortunately satellite) did not necessarily sign up to provide.
The post office accounts for those differences by measuring size and weight. Bigger, heavier packages attract a higher charge. But the post office doesn't charge more for sending a pound of lead figures than it charges for a pound of books. And it doesn't charge more if you're sending to an address that isn't on their special list of UPS affiliates.
The internet right now has all the ability it needs to match the post office's scheme. So your argument is simply false.
How is my argument, simply stated as all internet traffic is not equal, false? The fact that ISPs can treat the traffic differently (and some very much do) kind of makes my point, no?
You can read anything you want into my words for the sake of being argumentative, but they meaning was pretty fething plain.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
TLDR: Your argument is false because it simplifies the entire concept down to a point that you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.
Long version, it's false because it's a straw man argument. No one has argued that a 10 gb video file is equal in scale to a 13 kb .doc. NN does not posit that they are. NN posits that data should be treated equally regardless of where it came from or where it is going. The "all data is equal" part of NN is talking about how the transfer of data is regarded as a service, not the practical or technical needs/limitations of the network itself.
NN allows internet providers to treat a single "page of paper" differently from a "huge box of books" but this is an analogy so crude that it's virtually worthless. If I upload a 10 gb video file and a 13 KB .doc to my cloud for example, those files are going to in basic terms be taken apart and dissect into packets, sent over the line, and then reassembled on the other side according to the packet system being used by the network. To the cable itself the big box of books doesn't actually look any different from the page of paper, because while roughly analogous on a service level in real terms they function in completely different ways.
And honestly your ISP signed up to provide access to internet services like streaming video when they started selling internet access. They are expected to provide access to streaming services under NN rules in so far as NN posits that ISPs should not block accessibility, but if their service is unable to stream on a technical level that sounds like a problem with their service more than anything. I live in a complete backwater with a download rate between 200-500 KB and I can stream video well enough.
To add to LordofHats' point: With NN your ISP could charge you per GB (or whatever) but they just couldn't value different GBs differently. The problem for them is that charging that way doesn't make any sense anymore. The pipes are big enough and ISPs stopped charging like that at some point in the 90s. It was a race to the bottom, the bottom being a flat rate when it comes to the amount of data that you can push through your pipes. You only buy network throughput (bit/s) but that makes it harder for them to wring more money out of you (if your network throughput is good enough for you) as you can directly compare those numbers (cost per bit/s) because everybody moved to selling flat rates.
Now they want to remove NN so they can charge more on both sides: Content providers for the high speed lane and also you for access to certain packagers (like a video package that makes Netflix faster for you). That way they get the regular rent already get and can top it off with "convenience" fees on both sides for that extra bit of profit (as if both sides haven't already paid to get access to each other). They want to be the important one in this equation and not just provide the "dumb pipe" between you and what you value (content).
Mario wrote: To add to LordofHats' point: With NN your ISP could charge you per GB (or whatever) but they just couldn't value different GBs differently. The problem for them is that charging that way doesn't make any sense anymore. The pipes are big enough and ISPs stopped charging like that at some point in the 90s. It was a race to the bottom, the bottom being a flat rate when it comes to the amount of data that you can push through your pipes. You only buy network throughput (bit/s) but that makes it harder for them to wring more money out of you (if your network throughput is good enough for you) as you can directly compare those numbers (cost per bit/s) because everybody moved to selling flat rates.
Now they want to remove NN so they can charge more on both sides: Content providers for the high speed lane and also you for access to certain packagers (like a video package that makes Netflix faster for you). That way they get the regular rent already get and can top it off with "convenience" fees on both sides for that extra bit of profit (as if both sides haven't already paid to get access to each other). They want to be the important one in this equation and not just provide the "dumb pipe" between you and what you value (content).
Huh?
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
As a practical matter the old NN rule (classifying ISPs as Title II Utility) *was* a potential way where ISPs could be forced into being a "dumb pipe", and possibly turn it into a "metered" consumption. (which would be asinine)
The bigger concern for me, is if Comcast's Hulu services would have preferential routing over Netflix/Youtube... which the previous NN would be nearly powerless to prevent.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
Right, but there's not a technical reason for that: it's a business reason: quality of service gives a better user experience. There is no technical requirement to treat packets coming from streaming video ports any differently than packets coming from email ports.
CptJake was making a sort of bad example that his satellite provider having to perform QOS in order to have a more optimized, salable product is why they should be able to double dip, instead of, say, accurately advertising to CptJake an experience they can deliver at a price that reflects their costs... like other businesses do.
Why invest in infrastructure when you've got no real functional competitors due to a de facto monopoly?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/01/09 03:10:23
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
Right, but there's not a technical reason for that: it's a business reason: quality of service gives a better user experience. There is no technical requirement to treat packets coming from streaming video ports any differently than packets coming from email ports.
I'm not disagreeing...just pointing out that ISPs does manage data packet discretely. Reducing latency for video streaming would be expected behaviors by your ISP provider... even to the point of *working* with the CDN or Edge Providers.
CptJake wrote: How is my argument, simply stated as all internet traffic is not equal, false? The fact that ISPs can treat the traffic differently (and some very much do) kind of makes my point, no?
Because simply noting that not all traffic is identical isn't an argument, it's an observation. That was an observation you turned in to an argument by then comparing it to the post office, which you argued does charge for different size packages. I then noted this was a bad argument, because just as the post office charges based on the size of the package, so too can ISPs charge based on the quantity of data uploaded or downloaded.
You got pretty miffed about this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: That will always be a challenge... which has zero to do with NN.
But everything to do with regulation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/09 06:18:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Ashiraya wrote: Netflix is taking it to court. I can't wait.
They should hold a referendum on something like this.
We don't have national referendums. Only on the State, County, and Local/Municipal levels.
In order to have a national ballot, the Constitution would have to be Amended to allow for such. There has been an effort for over a decade now to do so, but nothing has come of it.
Well, strictly speaking, we did "have a referendum" of sorts on it. It was supposed to be open for commenting. The vast majority of those comments were pro-Net Neutrality.
It's just that those comments were also filled with comments made by stolen/"appropriated" identities and deceased individuals that were all posting a very specific set of words . And rather than do the responsible thing and open up an investigation into why that was done and delay any kind of a vote...Pai pressed forward as soon as he could and refused to do anything beyond making a taxpayer funded video lambasting Net Neutrality advocates and claiming "they didn't know what they were talking about".
Thus we got something that passed (shock! gasp!) along party lines, with one specific party voting against the people and one party voting for the people.
Sounds like local elections back in the day. We had a saying around here: "The graveyard's full of registered voters".
And I avoid falling into the trap of party blaming when it comes to something like this. None of the parties are "for the people". If the party of the Left Coast career politicians and New England Bluebloods voted "for the people", you can bet your ass they had something to gain from it.
You wouldn't have to have an constitutional amendment. There's is nothing stopping the government from having a voluntary questionaire that people can choose to take part in. It's just the result would only be finding a complete opinion, it wouldn't be binding and couldn't be used to force congress members and the president to pass any particular law.
An opinion poll or survey is just that, and the government has a website for that very thing. And the BATFE also has a site for gun owners to express their views on a proposed regulation (that was a real shocker when that site went up). Ashi mentioned a referendum on the issue, which is usually a binding vote, by the voters, on a particular issue. That would require Amending the Constitution to do on the national level.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/09 20:06:57
The supporters of the parry at fault are always very quick to suggest that the debate should avoid party blaming, raising the classic 'they're both bad' false equivalency. It's entertaining how reliably it repeats itself.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The supporters of the parry at fault are always very quick to suggest that the debate should avoid party blaming, raising the classic 'they're both bad' false equivalency. It's entertaining how reliably it repeats itself.
"They're both bad" isn't "false equivalency". It rooted in history, track records, and facts. And a notion (from supporters of a any given party, when their party isn't in the hotseat) that's usually bandied about when it's time to stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
Both parties are crap. Because they are made up politicians, who despite being part of the world's second oldest profession, operate more along the lines of the world's first oldest profession.
Just because the "elephants" are acting like idiots/greedy bastards with this issue, doesn't automatically make the other party a shining beacon of virtue and honesty.
Sounds like local elections back in the day. We had a saying around here: "The graveyard's full of registered voters".
This is a popular anecdote that does not support what you are trying to claim it does.
The anecdote refers to the fact that voter rolls are rarely, if ever, purged. So you have a great many dead people who are registered to vote. It is rarely if ever the case where those dead voters actually have 'voted' after their death.
And I avoid falling into the trap of party blaming when it comes to something like this. None of the parties are "for the people". If the party of the Left Coast career politicians and New England Bluebloods voted "for the people", you can bet your ass they had something to gain from it.
And yet one party has been pushing for better access to healthcare, better funding and access for retraining people in outdated fields of employment...while one party doesn't.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
But they should not treat it differently when it comes to you paying for it. It should all be the same. Why should your ISP get to decide that your GBs cost different amounts depending on what you do with them? That's just strange. Would you pay different amounts (on a per litre basis) if you were to re-fule two different cars at the same gas station with the same petrol?
The bigger concern for me, is if Comcast's Hulu services would have preferential routing over Netflix/Youtube... which the previous NN would be nearly powerless to prevent.
LordofHats wrote: TLDR: Your argument is false because it simplifies the entire concept down to a point that you're not even talking about the same thing anymore.
Long version, it's false because it's a straw man argument. No one has argued that a 10 gb video file is equal in scale to a 13 kb .doc.
Wrong.
I replied to:
Wolfblade wrote: We really don't need varied solutions though. We know the solution, and it's not hope that ISPs will be benevolent. There needs to be clear and strict laws to enforce all legal internet traffic is treated equally.
And I pointed out all traffic is not equal.
Period.
Read what ever you want into my comment. In the context I typed it, it is 100% correct.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The supporters of the parry at fault are always very quick to suggest that the debate should avoid party blaming, raising the classic 'they're both bad' false equivalency. It's entertaining how reliably it repeats itself.
"They're both bad" isn't "false equivalency". It rooted in history, track records, and facts. And a notion (from supporters of a any given party, when their party isn't in the hotseat) that's usually bandied about when it's time to stick your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich.
Both parties are crap. Because they are made up politicians, who despite being part of the world's second oldest profession, operate more along the lines of the world's first oldest profession.
Just because the "elephants" are acting like idiots/greedy bastards with this issue, doesn't automatically make the other party a shining beacon of virtue and honesty.
Double down on the false equivalency with straw man. Not my first guess but still a classic.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
Right, but there's not a technical reason for that: it's a business reason: quality of service gives a better user experience. There is no technical requirement to treat packets coming from streaming video ports any differently than packets coming from email ports.
CptJake was making a sort of bad example that his satellite provider having to perform QOS in order to have a more optimized, salable product is why they should be able to double dip, instead of, say, accurately advertising to CptJake an experience they can deliver at a price that reflects their costs... like other businesses do.
Why invest in infrastructure when you've got no real functional competitors due to a de facto monopoly?
There is very much a technical reason to treat packets from streaming data differently from of an email. Packets from streaming data cannot be put back together successfully for the viewer of the stream if the data suffers delays/jitter or comes through in the wrong order (some algorithms correct a bit but the reality is QOS is very important to streaming data, hence different protocols handle the packet streams). An email even split into a series of datagrams gets assembled correctly and can withstand much more delay without the receiver noticing poor quality of service.
ISPs can definitely differentiate between Email transactions vs. Netflix Streaming vs. WoW gaming vs. etc. In fact they *have* to in order to maintain optimal routing.
But they should not treat it differently when it comes to you paying for it. It should all be the same. Why should your ISP get to decide that your GBs cost different amounts depending on what you do with them? That's just strange. Would you pay different amounts (on a per litre basis) if you were to re-fule two different cars at the same gas station with the same petrol?
Funny story, that actually does happen in the US with Diesel, and the UK too iirc.
There are two types of diesel. Road diesel, which is for vehicles operating on public roads. And then there is off road diesel which is for off road vehicles or things like chainsaws and generators.
The two diesels are identicle, except one has road taxes and one doesn't. Offroad diesel is substantially cheaper because it doesn't have these taxes on it. The diesels are given different dyes so authorities can tell the difference between them if they catch someone with a road vehicle using of road diesel for tax dodging.
