Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Today the FCC just voted 2-1 to begin to unroll net neutrality protections, but I want to remind people about last month's repeal of important privacy protections. With a green light from Congress & President Trump, your ISP may begin some really creepy business practices that endanger your family's privacy and security.

Troubling ISP Privacy Repeal: The Data Will Be Breached
https://rietta.com/blog/2017/05/18/isp-privacy-repeal/

I'm meeting with my State Senator tomorrow to discuss these issues. Please be informed and know that while some will frame a tradeoff between privacy and security, what is really at stake is your personal security vs insecurity.

Frank
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
Awww. You think there is privacy on the internet. Bless your heart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Today the FCC just voted 2-1 to begin to unroll net neutrality protections, but I want to remind people about last month's repeal of important privacy protections. With a green light from Congress & President Trump, your ISP may begin some really creepy business practices that endanger your family's privacy and security.
Most of those "creepy business practices" are already being done by some of the major ISPs. So what? Do you think your life on Facebook is private too?

The biggest problem with Obama's net neutrality BS is that the major content providers like Netflix and YouTube get to deliver their product to you on the backs of the big ISPs without having to pay extra for their bandwidth usage. That cost is passed on to the ISPs' customers even if they don't use the Netflix service. How net neutral is that?

I sincerely hope Ajit Pai gets this net neutrality BS removed. If Netflix wants to sell you a service and you want to buy that service, then Netflix needs to pay for the underlying infrastructure (their own or someone else's) to deliver it to you and you need to pay a realistic cost to purchase it. I, as a non-Netflix user, should not be required to subsidize Netflix and its customers.
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,608 Posts
:screwy:What about the poor guy that only sends a couple emails a month. Your incessant forum use is riding on the backs of the ISPs and he's having to pay for it.

ISPs are not the only ones that pay for building the backbone, and in fact many ISPs do none of it. ISP are by definition, Internet Service Providers. If they are worried about amount of traffic they already have a solution and that's charging for bandwidth used. This has nothing to do with bandwidth, it's about control of the internet and ISPs getting to direct and control your internet usage. Getting to be content providers instead of ISPs.

As you can tell, I'm all for net neutrality. In fact, I believe that any company that wants to provide internet service and also content, should be split in two. Having ISPs that only provide access to the Internet keeps the Internet free. Free for mom and pop to set up shop and not be blocked out because a ISP/Content provider is in bed with a big corp and that corp has a non-compete clause in their agreement, free for me to watch Netflix at the same d/l speed as someone that gets their movie from their ISP/Content Provider or free to get my news from a internet presence of my choice instead of being locked into a big news outlet.

As I said, this has nothing to do with bandwidth constraints and the fact that ISPs don't charge for bandwidth used or have very high limits proves that. It's all about monetizing the internet and controlling what you watch, from who, etc.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
ISPs are not the only ones that pay for building the backbone, and in fact many ISPs do none of it.
Really? So who is building that backbone?

As you can tell, I'm all for net neutrality. In fact, I believe that any company that wants to provide internet service and also content, should be split in two.
You cannot regulate yourself to freedom.

The biggest problem with Obama's net neutrality BS is that the major content providers like Netflix and YouTube get to deliver their product to you on the backs of the big ISPs without having to pay extra for their bandwidth usage. That cost is passed on to the ISPs' customers even if they don't use the Netflix service. How net neutral is that?
This. Like most regulation, it's goal is exactly the opposite of what it states, and it's supporters are those you have been lead to believe it would harm.

And that assumes that I'm for using the police power of the state to make capitalism fair, which I absolutely am not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,783 Posts
he biggest problem with Obama's net neutrality BS is that the major content providers like Netflix and YouTube get to deliver their product to you on the backs of the big ISPs without having to pay extra for their bandwidth usage. That cost is passed on to the ISPs' customers even if they don't use the Netflix service. How net neutral is that?
Netflix and Youtube are literally paying tens of millions per month for the bandwidth they're using and you're saying they're not paying for what they're using. That just fails basic fact checking and you assert a logical fallacy (proof of a negative) as a basis for your argument?

What am I missing? What do I not understand here?
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
Netflix and Youtube are literally paying tens of millions per month for the bandwidth they're using and you're saying they're not paying for what they're using. That just fails basic fact checking and you assert a logical fallacy (proof of a negative) as a basis for your argument?

What am I missing? What do I not understand here?
They are paying for bandwidth by the Mb at the source and nothing more, which isn't an accurate representation of their financial impact to a network. It doesn't include the additional backbone bandwidth necessary (to all destinations) to ensure low latency and jitter. It doesn't include the impact of RTP and/or compression on WAN links, which may be compressed.

To provide a good user experience, a video source requires a much different infrastructure than file sharing, even if they are both the exact same bandwidth and number of connections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,909 Posts
They are paying for bandwidth by the Mb at the source and nothing more, which isn't an accurate representation of their financial impact to a network. It doesn't include the additional backbone bandwidth necessary (to all destinations) to ensure low latency and jitter. It doesn't include the impact of RTP and/or compression on WAN links, which may be compressed.

To provide a good user experience, a video source requires a much different infrastructure than file sharing, even if they are both the exact same bandwidth and number of connections.
Content providers are paying at the source to be on the net and accessible....why should they pay on the user end? If the user wants enough speed / bandwidth to access the content error free the user should pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,956 Posts
Content providers are paying at the source to be on the net and accessible....why should they pay on the user end? If the user wants enough speed / bandwidth to access the content error free the user should pay for it.
Do you really believe it costs only $8-$12 per month for Netflix to deliver their content? The only reason it does is because Netflix isn't incurring any costs for final delivery to the customer. Those costs are borne by Comcast, AT&T, etc. customers whether they use the Netflix service or not. If a Netflix customer wasn't getting a subsidized rate, his real monthly subscription costs would probably be ~$50 per month. On top of his normal internet costs. That's the business plan that Netflix runs on - subsidized content delivery cost. Without it, they probably wouldn't be a viable business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,308 Posts
Netflix already has a peering agreement with Comcast that dates back several years, net neutrality rules notwithstanding: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/...netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html?_r=0

It does concern me that Comcast has been buying up content providers while owning the duopoly (or in some cases monopoly) status of data pipeline provider for many areas. Perhaps Comcast will soon be able to slow data rates for content they didn't create. Unhappy consumers can just buy their Internet access from somewhere else - except they often can't. Maybe the Southern Company will start buying up HVAC companies, then for those AC units they didn't sell to the consumer, they could suspend power periodically to keep excess load off their system.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
Content providers are paying at the source to be on the net and accessible....why should they pay on the user end? If the user wants enough speed / bandwidth to access the content error free the user should pay for it.
That's not how the internet works.
 

·
Ninjaneering Computers
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Ultimately, everything on the internet is just a data packet. Whether it is your email, your Bea Arthur porn, or your 4k NetFlix movie - it's all just data packets. The only difference is of quantity.

So here's how the internet works: NetFlix pays a contracted amount to send out its data packets. The customer pays a contracted rate to receive said data packets. That's it.

Net Neutrality is the concept that your ISP cannot throttle certain data packets. They must treat all packets equally. Without this concept, your ISP can essentially become a web filter. Imagine if Comcast all of a sudden decided that they want to severely de-prioritize data packets from any site related to guns. You could still stream your HD Bea Arthur porn, but this site would load like it was on a 56k modem.

Basically, it is telling the ISPs that they are in the business of delivering data packets, and that all data packets must be treated equally. Netflix is not being subsidized - they are paying what they have negotiated with their backbone providers. Customers are not picking up any slack, because they are paying their agreed-upon rates for their internet service.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
Ultimately, everything on the internet is just a data packet. Whether it is your email, your Bea Arthur porn, or your 4k NetFlix movie - it's all just data packets. The only difference is of quantity.

So here's how the internet works: NetFlix pays a contracted amount to send out its data packets. The customer pays a contracted rate to receive said data packets. That's it.

Net Neutrality is the concept that your ISP cannot throttle certain data packets. They must treat all packets equally. Without this concept, your ISP can essentially become a web filter. Imagine if Comcast all of a sudden decided that they want to severely de-prioritize data packets from any site related to guns. You could still stream your HD Bea Arthur porn, but this site would load like it was on a 56k modem.

Basically, it is telling the ISPs that they are in the business of delivering data packets, and that all data packets must be treated equally. Netflix is not being subsidized - they are paying what they have negotiated with their backbone providers. Customers are not picking up any slack, because they are paying their agreed-upon rates for their internet service.
False.

Br'er Fox, please don't throw me into that net neutrality patch.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Ultimately, everything on the internet is just a data packet. Whether it is your email, your Bea Arthur porn, or your 4k NetFlix movie - it's all just data packets. The only difference is of quantity.

So here's how the internet works: NetFlix pays a contracted amount to send out its data packets. The customer pays a contracted rate to receive said data packets. That's it.

Net Neutrality is the concept that your ISP cannot throttle certain data packets. They must treat all packets equally. Without this concept, your ISP can essentially become a web filter. Imagine if Comcast all of a sudden decided that they want to severely de-prioritize data packets from any site related to guns. You could still stream your HD Bea Arthur porn, but this site would load like it was on a 56k modem.

Basically, it is telling the ISPs that they are in the business of delivering data packets, and that all data packets must be treated equally. Netflix is not being subsidized - they are paying what they have negotiated with their backbone providers. Customers are not picking up any slack, because they are paying their agreed-upon rates for their internet service.
all packets aren't created equal. an ISP should be able to do whatever they want with them, granted it's part of the agreement with the customer. and the customer should be able to choose whatever ISP they want, in a free market.
 

·
Ninjaneering Computers
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
False.

Br'er Fox, please don't throw me into that net neutrality patch.....
OK, 'splain it for me.

https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality

Net neutrality is the principle that individuals should be free to access all content and applications equally, regardless of the source, without Internet Service Providers discriminating against specific online services or websites. In other words, it is the principle that the company that connects you to the internet does not get to control what you do on the internet.
How is that so different from what I said?
 

·
Swollen Member
Joined
·
11,969 Posts
all packets aren't created equal. an ISP should be able to do whatever they want with them, granted it's part of the agreement with the customer. and the customer should be able to choose whatever ISP they want, in a free market.
What should internet consumers do when they are not in a free market, when they have few to no competitive options for internet? In most of the U.S., consumers can only choose 1 or 2 internet providers. So, at worst, there's a regional monopoly, and at best, there's a duopoly.

I would be completely against net neutrality if the internet marketplace had a minimum of three provider choices throughout most American markets, but that is not the case. I'm personally on the fence over net neutrality because of the lack of consumer choice.
 

·
Proud GCO member.
Joined
·
7,960 Posts
What should internet consumers do when they are not in a free market, when they have few to no competitive options for internet? In most of the U.S., consumers can only choose 1 or 2 internet providers. So, at worst, there's a regional monopoly, and at best, there's a duopoly.

I would be completely against net neutrality if the internet marketplace had a minimum of three provider choices throughout most American markets, but that is not the case. I'm personally on the fence over net neutrality because of the lack of consumer choice.
That situation is created, and perpetuated, by government regulation.

OK, 'splain it for me.

How is that so different from what I said?
Because it pretends the realities and intricacies of operating an internet backbone and countless interconnection points and agreements can be distilled down to one sentence.

Ultimately, everything on the internet is just a data packet. ... it's all just data packets. The only difference is of quantity.
When you understand why this is false you will understand why your argument doesn't hold water.
 

·
Ninjaneering Computers
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
Because it pretends the realities and intricacies of operating an internet backbone and countless interconnection points and agreements can be distilled down to one sentence.

When you understand why this is false you will understand why your argument doesn't hold water.
You're going to have to explain better. "When you understand it, you'll get it" is a statement, not an explanation of your position.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top