Wouldn't be an issue if we could start enforcing anti-trust on these huge ISPs. They monopolize infrastructure and buy out competition with no resistance. Start-up ISPs simply cant compete allowing the big boys like Comcast and ATT to charge whateverthey want.
There wasn't anything "neutral" about "neutrality."
It was only veiled partisan censorship.
Again... there's reality, and then there's the left's spin on reality.
If the left had actually been paying attention, they would have realized giving up control of Internet stewardship was a bigger issue.
Children always have had problems properly prioritizing the things they want, vs the things we all need.
Quote:Wouldn't be an issue if we could start enforcing anti-trust on these huge ISPs. They monopolize infrastructure and buy out competition with no resistance. Start-up ISPs simply cant compete allowing the big boys like Comcast and ATT to charge whateverthey want.
Well 1) we're not going to nor has it been indicated that enforcing anti-trust laws is a priority of this administration
2) It is a problem...right now.
3) See One.
So in summary bye bye net neutrality. Say hello to throttled pixelated Netflix.
Quote:Well 1) we're not going to nor has it been indicated that enforcing anti-trust laws is a priority of this administration
2) It is a problem...right now.
3) See One.
So in summary bye bye net neutrality. Say hello to throttled pixelated Netflix.
At least Trump has brought up enforcing anti-trust laws (albeit about Amazon). I didn't here those two words uttered once under the Obama administration.
Also, it is not a problem right now because, as far as I am aware, there isn't a single ISP charging more to use specific websites.
Quote:At least Trump has brought up enforcing anti-trust laws (albeit about Amazon). I didn't here those two words uttered once under the Obama administration.
Also, it is not a problem right now because, as far as I am aware, there isn't a single ISP charging more to use specific websites.
It's not about just charging more. It's about throttling the speeds so that certain types of bandwidth heavy content (e.g video) is slowed down.
Quote:It's not about just charging more. It's about throttling the speeds so that certain types of bandwidth heavy content (e.g video) is slowed down.
Right, and charging a premium for access to more bandwidth when it comes to specific web services.
Again, are any of the ISPs doing this right now?
Quote:Right, and charging a premium for access to more bandwidth when it comes to specific web services.
Again, are any of the ISPs doing this right now?
They can't right now, because the FCC declared the Internet under Title II in 2015.
It's not about any of this nonsense at all.
Way to miss the mark completely.
Quote:Right, and charging a premium for access to more bandwidth when it comes to specific web services.
Again, are any of the ISPs doing this right now?
Comcast has been implicated in throttling Netflix. Not charging more. I'm sure they would though if they could.
Let me ask you this. If you buy 500 Gb of data should your ISP have the right to manipulate their speeds based on the content you download?
Quote:Comcast has been implicated in throttling Netflix. Not charging more. I'm sure they would though if they could.
Let me ask you this. If you buy 500 Gb of data should your ISP have the right to manipulate their speeds based on the content you download?
It's their service, they can do what they want. In most cases, the ISP also owns the infrastructure, giving them total control. Do I like it? Hell no, but I am not going to ask the government to dictate how they should run THEIR service.
I do, however, have an issue with government-granted monopolies to these ISPs. I would prefer to select from multiple competing ISPs who most likely WON'T throttle network traffic because of how unpopular it is. But, because the rights to infrastructure in most cities are granted to a single enterprise, we are left with only one option. It gets complicated on who or what should manage network infrastructure, but I think THAT is the route we should take over enacting net neutrality.
Quote:It's their service, they can do what they want. In most cases, the ISP also owns the infrastructure, giving them total control. Do I like it? Hell no, but I am not going to ask the government to dictate how they should run THEIR service.
I do, however, have an issue with government-granted monopolies to these ISPs. I would prefer to select from multiple competing ISPs who most likely WON'T throttle network traffic because of how unpopular it is. But, because the rights to infrastructure in most cities are granted to a single enterprise, we are left with only one option. It gets complicated on who or what should manage network infrastructure, but I think THAT is the route we should take over enacting net neutrality.
Not being snide, because I so agree with what you said, but isn't the government getting involved one way or another in your scenario? Also, since that is your perspective, do you expect this administration to do as you suggested? If they do not, what do you think would be the reason? Lastly, would that align with your political beliefs?
Controlling the internet use is most governments wet dream right now.
Quote:Not being snide, because I so agree with what you said, but isn't the government getting involved one way or another in your scenario? Also, since that is your perspective, do you expect this administration to do as you suggested? If they do not, what do you think would be the reason? Lastly, would that align with your political beliefs?
It's pretty complicated, in my opinion. If we federalized network infrastructure, it is another service the government will manage. ISPs will have to share these network trunks. Who determines what share of the trunk an ISP gets? Will the trunk be properly managed or upgraded, considering how sloppy/slow the government is? Very challenging problem. The issue right now is whoever lays/owns the network infrastructure will often be the sole ISP in the area. There is only so much room, specifically in cities, to run major network trunks. So an ISP can gain total monopoly over an area, and it is protected by the state because THEY decide when and where infrastructure can or can't be ran. Infrastructure owners do sublet or rent bandwidth to other ISPs/groups, but its often not enough.
I don't know if the Trump administration will go in this direction. At least I haven't heard much about the administrations position on network infrastructure regulation.
Would it align with my political beliefs? Not really, but it is one method of enabling ISP competition.
Quote:It's pretty complicated, in my opinion. If we federalized network infrastructure, it is another service the government will manage. ISPs will have to share these network trunks. Who determines what share of the trunk an ISP gets? Will the trunk be properly managed or upgraded, considering how sloppy/slow the government is? Very challenging problem. The issue right now is whoever lays/owns the network infrastructure will often be the sole ISP in the area. There is only so much room, specifically in cities, to run major network trunks. So an ISP can gain total monopoly over an area, and it is protected by the state because THEY decide when and where infrastructure can or can't be ran. Infrastructure owners do sublet or rent bandwidth to other ISPs/groups, but its often not enough.
I don't know if the Trump administration will go in this direction. At least I haven't heard much about the administrations position on network infrastructure regulation.
Would it align with my political beliefs? Not really, but it is one method of enabling ISP competition.
Thanks for responding. It seems like a slippery slope either way, but government intervention is needed in some capacity to "protect" the consumer. We have a check, just trying to see what the balance would be to you according to how you politically align.
I'm not sure about the whole net neutrality thing at this point. From what I understand much of the argument regarding this kind of legislation started when technology was far less advanced than it is now. I don't see ISP's really throttling popular traffic such as Netflix at this point because we're not talking about DSL or other basically outdated technologies that would be affected.
I guess I'll just have to do some research.
Quote:I'm not sure about the whole net neutrality thing at this point. From what I understand much of the argument regarding this kind of legislation started when technology was far less advanced than it is now. I don't see ISP's really throttling popular traffic such as Netflix at this point because we're not talking about DSL or other basically outdated technologies that would be affected.
I guess I'll just have to do some research.
Technological improvements in infrastructure provide much MUCH higher bandwidth throughput today than ever before. There isn't a reason for them to throttle, but because of their monopoly there is always the option to charge premiums for certain sites and the consumer can't do anything about it. Again though, it hasn't happened yet.
It makes me wonder. If you encrypt your traffic using a VPN, how can your ISP ever know you are using a streaming service? How can they charge premiums for specific services or sites if all your traffic destination is undecipherable? Of course, certain ISPs have/can totally block VPN/openSSL traffic so that is a risk too.
Quote:Technological improvements in infrastructure provide much MUCH higher bandwidth throughput today than ever before. There isn't a reason for them to throttle, but because of their monopoly there is always the option to charge premiums for certain sites and the consumer can't do anything about it. Again though, it hasn't happened yet.
It makes me wonder. If you encrypt your traffic using a VPN, how can your ISP ever know you are using a streaming service? How can they charge premiums for specific services or sites if all your traffic destination is undecipherable? Of course, certain ISPs have/can totally block VPN/openSSL traffic so that is a risk too.
There is if you're ditching cable for internet TV like PS Vue, Sling, Netflix, Direct TV now. It also costs money to use a VPN.
Quote:Technological improvements in infrastructure provide much MUCH higher bandwidth throughput today than ever before. There isn't a reason for them to throttle, but because of their monopoly there is always the option to charge premiums for certain sites and the consumer can't do anything about it. Again though, it hasn't happened yet.
It makes me wonder. If you encrypt your traffic using a VPN, how can your ISP ever know you are using a streaming service? How can they charge premiums for specific services or sites if all your traffic destination is undecipherable? Of course, certain ISPs have/can totally block VPN/openSSL traffic so that is a risk too.
Regarding your first statement, that's basically how I'm looking at it. To give an analogy, look at what recently happened to I believe DirecTV customers (it might have been Comcast, I'm too lazy to look it up) recently. The local FOX/CBS affiliate was having to renegotiate a contract for the provider to continue service. The consumer ended up without access to those networks only through the provider. The same could possibly start happening between online companies that deliver content ONLY over the internet (Netflix) and the ISP's.
Regarding your second point. I don't see them (the ISP's) specifically blocking VPN/OpenSSL since it's used for so many applications related to business among other things. But I can see them blocking protocols such as torrent. Again though, what would be the point other than to limit the quantity of data downloaded rather than the actual content?
As I said, I don't understand the whole "net neutrality" thing fully.