Author Topic: Net Neutrality ?  (Read 892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15185
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2017, 10:10:38 AM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

Por Que No Los Dos?

Because there are no downsides to breaking up these effective monopolies (for consumers and citizens).  There are with allowing the FCC to have direct regulatory power over internet traffic.  Even if you want both, do the anti-trust stuff first!
Banned from both Hacker News and the xkcd forum.

Online wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 12203
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2017, 12:20:42 PM »
"Breaking up" a facilities based monopoly is nowhere near as simple as some describe.  Apart from wholesale agreements, which are already in place due to the Telcom act of 1996, the only way to have true network competition is to retrench the last mile to each home, which is a HUGELY expensive proposition.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8931
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2017, 12:39:54 PM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

Por Que No Los Dos?

Because there are no downsides to breaking up these effective monopolies (for consumers and citizens).  There are with allowing the FCC to have direct regulatory power over internet traffic.  Even if you want both, do the anti-trust stuff first!

I think you are overstating both the lack of downsides and the direct regulatory power.  Also, if I had my way the FTC, and other consumer agencies, would have other methods of redress besides antitrust.
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered.

Online werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3112
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #33 on: May 13, 2017, 07:06:42 AM »
« Last Edit: May 13, 2017, 07:20:30 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5580
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #34 on: May 18, 2017, 03:12:36 PM »
*grumble grumble*

Quote
The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 today to start the process of eliminating net neutrality rules and the classification of home and mobile Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes eliminating the Title II classification and seeks comment on what, if anything, should replace the current net neutrality rules. But Chairman Ajit Pai is making no promises about reinstating the two-year-old net neutrality rules that forbid ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content or prioritizing content in exchange for payment. Pai's proposal argues that throttling websites and applications might somehow help Internet users.

Throttling of websites and online services might help customers, FCC says

The FCC plans to take comments on its plan until August 16 (the docket is available here) and then make a final decision sometime after that.

...

From: Ars Technica
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

Offline Nemmzy

  • Tonight we post... IN HELL!
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #35 on: May 18, 2017, 10:18:33 PM »
Andrew might be right about his anti trust stance as the solution.


https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/


This article argues that what is important is not fast vs slow lanes. Fast lanes already exist due to peering. I never thought of peering in that way before but it is essentially true imo. The author is arguing we should maintain the free and open internet by ensuring ISPs can't double dip by requiring payment on both ends. This can be done by returning to the 90s and European model of allowing any company  who wants access to the last mile to have it. If you have 20 ISPs to choose from the big ones are less likely to throttle traffic from content providers they don't like for fear of lossing customers. However, I think that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

« Last Edit: May 18, 2017, 10:20:50 PM by Nemmzy »

Offline Soldier of FORTRAN

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5580
  • Cache rules everything around me.
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #36 on: May 18, 2017, 10:24:17 PM »
Where we're headed, the 'Giant Piles of Tangled Shit Everywhere' model they use in the third world could be an improvement. 

Edit:

This_Is_What_Freedom_Looks_Like.jpg:
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 02:27:18 PM by Soldier of FORTRAN »
Every soup ladled to the hungry, every blanket draped over the cold signifies, in the final sense, a theft from my gigantic paycheck.

 

personate-rain