Did it actually change any existing practices or was it just a protective measure?
Yes it did. During the mid to late 2000s, some ISPs began blocking peer-to-peer services and VOIP services. ISPs were also discussing charging sites and services for access to faster speeds, though I don’t think sny had yet implemented this.The FCC passed rules in 2010 to stop these practices, but those were thrown out in a 2014 appeals court ruling. The 2015 rules replaced them.
I was planning on cord cutting when my contract was up next June.
I imagine Comcast will be throttling it's cord cutting competition (netflix, HBOgo, Amazon, Sling etc)
Yeah, we're making the switch now.
Not only will the prices of streaming services increase, but more consumers will probably cut the streaming service and go back to cable! It's a win-in for the cable companies no matter how you slice it.
Oh wait, I forgot; somehow 5 other cable companies will install wires directly to my house because NN stifles innovation. That's right, I'll just have 6 ISPs to choose from! Problem solved!
RE: When you have to pay a fee of $20 a month just to watch Netflix.... Â
Interesting (quasi-political) topic that increasingly became partisan-politicized with inflammatory references by both sides.
In this environment, even quasi-political discussions are becoming impossible on BBI. Shame.
Eric, don't sound so surprised. What did you expect? Anything remotely political on BBI has gotten ugly, hence the need to ban political threads. I just don't get surprise.
It wouldn’t be a universal block of VPNs. VPNs that play by the rules would be whitelisted.
How so? A VPN is simply an IP address. How do you white-list billions of IP addresses? What would be the criteria for such white-listing? What would be the turn-around time for such white-listing?
with the overboard reactions truly Funny! The world is ending... States right LOL,and our savior is a Grandstanding Clown named Eric Schneiderman (probably spelled it wrong).
i.e., without government interference, capitalism/competition will motivate completely unregulated businesses to provide the best-possible value to the consumer. I don't think this theory accounts well for scenarios where there are large structural barriers to entry (e.g., the tremendous investment required to run wires to millions of homes), but, eventually, someone would come up with a solution that provides very fast, unfettered access (e.g., wireless data via an ISP with net-neutrality marketing), or neighborhoods would pool resources for a couple of T1s and some kind of WAN (rooftop wireless?) solution. Of course, many people might suffer in the interim, and there's always the chance that ALEC would draft some legislation that bans or makes prohibitively expensive any alternative to the entrenched powers (e.g., vicarious liability for users viewing illicit content)...
Quote:
Unless you work for a cable company/ISP
JerryNYG : 6:12 am : link : reply
What possible reason is there to support this move by the FCC?
Consumers of the internet - which is EVERYONE nowadays - from rent-seeking telecom monopolies has somehow become a vote down party lines.
These same telecom giants have contributed hundreds of millions to congressional campaign coffers over the last 10 years. Which political party do you suppose has been the beneficiary of these donations? Overwhelmingly so. Does it really surprise anyone which way that party swings on this issue?
Does it really surprise anyone that the party in question and current administration has also been slashing funding to consumer rights boards across the country in favor of wealthy corporate interests?
Eric is right. This ruling affects everyone here and shouldn't be political. It's one of the few policy issues that truly is black and white without much nuance. And yet, you see the same echo chamber momos knocking state Attorney Generals, like Eric Schniederman (of whom I'm not fan) for simply trying to, and yes, invariably grandstanding, on an issue that will up screwing millions of American families.
As someone whose political ideology grew up around Reaganesque free market policies, it's a shame that it's since been hijacked to mean something entirely else - giving the American consumer a choice of either getting shafted by Comcast, or getting shafted by Verizon.
On how we're still protected as consumers even though net neutrality has been repealed.. Video - ( New Window )
I actually feel dumber for having read that.
I'd be willing to read a concise article with simple explanations for why NN is a bad thing....one that doesn't have an obvious slant to it.
Because the article was more interested in disparaging the anchor; not explain the evils of NN.
I mean shit, at least formulate your own opinion on the subject.
Netflix, Facebook, and others are very sanctimonious and hypocritical about this.
Netflix today charges a fee (8.99 per month), but then they have an additional fee if you want more devices to be able to run Netflix simultaneously.
Why is that fair? why is that net neutral? If Comcast told you you can stream one netflix device at a time, but had to pay more they'd be on a Portuguese graphic.
If they were truly concerned with net neutrality and open internet why tier their own service and then complain when others can potentially do the same.
Wait, are you saying corporations only exist to make money!? SHOCKING!
No, not what I'm saying.
I'm saying people act like Netflix and Facebook and others are pro net neutrality because they care so much about consumers rights and service. But they don't care any more than the telcos.
Netflix today charges a fee (8.99 per month), but then they have an additional fee if you want more devices to be able to run Netflix simultaneously.
Why is that fair? why is that net neutral? If Comcast told you you can stream one netflix device at a time, but had to pay more they'd be on a Portuguese graphic.
If they were truly concerned with net neutrality and open internet why tier their own service and then complain when others can potentially do the same.
Huh?
You buy a car from a dealership. Public roads are free and open. The dealership is under no obligation to provide you additional cars for free simply because the roadway system is free and open.
You obfuscate the roles that Netflix and Comcast have in this ordeal. Two entirely different entities.
RE: RE: RE: RE: WHy did Netflix do I know go up yesterday? Â
I'm saying people act like Netflix and Facebook and others are pro net neutrality because they care so much about consumers rights and service. But they don't care any more than the telcos.
Oh, I completely agree! People need to stop being gullible. These companies would walk over your dead body to make a buck.
But it doesn't mean the public can't align with corporations, if just for a moment, in order to leverage their lobbying power.
My mother passed away in 2009, yet somehow also wrote an FCC comment this past August in support of repealing net neutrality. Apparently, I wrote an FCC comment in July in support of repealing net neutrality. My father, who is 73 and uses the internet solely for the purposes of forwarding chain emails, wrote two FCC comments this summer in support of repealing net neutrality.
The entire thing is shady. People should check their own names and their family members' names.
My mother passed away in 2009, yet somehow also wrote an FCC comment this past August in support of repealing net neutrality. Apparently, I wrote an FCC comment in July in support of repealing net neutrality. My father, who is 73 and uses the internet solely for the purposes of forwarding chain emails, wrote two FCC comments this summer in support of repealing net neutrality.
The entire thing is shady. People should check their own names and their family members' names. Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for the link. The mfers used me and my address as well. It says I made a comment on July 17th.
On how we're still protected as consumers even though net neutrality has been repealed.. Video - ( New Window )
This wasn't a good breakdown - this was a guy coming on tv and fudging the facts, and an article written by someone who likely didn't bother to check whether what he said was accurate (which would be typical for the daily caller).
The guest tries to cite the Sherman and Clayton acts as protections that will exist against large web-based companies trying to leverage themselves against competitors, and Ali Velshi points out that there has never been any legal restrictions for companies wanting to charge more for faster speeds.
Velshi is correct, and if you look up the sections of the law that the guest brings up it's easy to see that they don't even apply to the example that was provided to him.
The guest then begins to walk his statement back, first by presenting the strawman that net neutrality wouldn't offer these protections either, and then (in his last comments before the video is cutoff) makes the case that if you're "raising rivals costs" or entering into "exclusive arrangements" then the Sherman and Clayton acts would kick in.
But of course, no one is concerned about antitrust and discrimination practices, the biggest issue is the inevitable price gouging that will be taking place once net neutrality has ended and the immediate effect it will have on individual consumers, small businesses, and tech startups.
RE: RE: RE: RE: One area that affects a big slice of BBI Â
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: One area that affects a big slice of BBI Â
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
Well, there's the traffic from the host to the VPN. The ISP used by the host can be throttled or blocked too, no?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: One area that affects a big slice of BBI Â
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
Well, there's the traffic from the host to the VPN. The ISP used by the host can be throttled or blocked too, no?
Sure but who is to say that the host will be in the country?
The traffic is almost certain to be in the country. It's unlikely that there will only be one hop between your VPN and the streaming server abroad.
If the VPN is actually out of the country then that likely won't be an issue, but that in itself could introduce so many potential performance issues that it might not be much better than a throttled connection.
I just don't see VPN as a silver bullet that ISP's are powerless against here, depending on how far they're willing to go. So your ISP can't tell what kind of traffic is occurring in YOUR connection? Fine, but what if they just slow all kinds of a particular traffic from HOSTS who don't pay a premium?
Like I said, it's gonna be a LONG time before this is settled.
Yes it did. During the mid to late 2000s, some ISPs began blocking peer-to-peer services and VOIP services. ISPs were also discussing charging sites and services for access to faster speeds, though I don’t think sny had yet implemented this.The FCC passed rules in 2010 to stop these practices, but those were thrown out in a 2014 appeals court ruling. The 2015 rules replaced them.
I imagine Comcast will be throttling it's cord cutting competition (netflix, HBOgo, Amazon, Sling etc)
Easy solution; purchase a VPN. They are dirt cheap and safer to use anyways.
Or, you know, content creators and providers could just produce a more consumer-friendly pricing model....(insert Spotify here).
I imagine Comcast will be throttling it's cord cutting competition (netflix, HBOgo, Amazon, Sling etc)
Yeah, we're making the switch now.
Not only will the prices of streaming services increase, but more consumers will probably cut the streaming service and go back to cable! It's a win-in for the cable companies no matter how you slice it.
Oh wait, I forgot; somehow 5 other cable companies will install wires directly to my house because NN stifles innovation. That's right, I'll just have 6 ISPs to choose from! Problem solved!
It’s gonna go up $8 because of this?! He’s dead to me.
The FCC is also making it to where there are no states rights when it comes to having their own net neutrality.
Meh, pot is still illegal, right? Doesn't stop states from doing what they want. The new America, I suppose.
Quote:
Many analysts are expecting ISPs to shut down Kodi streams as a result of this ruling.
Easy solution; purchase a VPN. They are dirt cheap and safer to use anyways.
Or, you know, content creators and providers could just produce a more consumer-friendly pricing model....(insert Spotify here).
That would work.....unless ISPs block or throttle VPN services.
IMO, virtually impossible to regulate. VPNs are a universally accepted technology, leveraged by almost every corporation on the planet.
In this environment, even quasi-political discussions are becoming impossible on BBI. Shame.
Eric, don't sound so surprised. What did you expect? Anything remotely political on BBI has gotten ugly, hence the need to ban political threads. I just don't get surprise.
Quote:
That would work.....unless ISPs block or throttle VPN services.
IMO, virtually impossible to regulate. VPNs are a universally accepted technology, leveraged by almost every corporation on the planet.
It wouldn’t be a universal block of VPNs. VPNs that play by the rules would be whitelisted.
Charlie Brown - AT&T
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Data Communications and the Last Mile
Those that have Digital (DSL, ISDN. Cable, Wireless) are already at the mercy of your network access provider.
In this environment, even quasi-political discussions are becoming impossible on BBI. Shame.
You're going to hate the next few days because what I am hearing is politically something big is about to go down
How so? A VPN is simply an IP address. How do you white-list billions of IP addresses? What would be the criteria for such white-listing? What would be the turn-around time for such white-listing?
Because they were told to. Lol.
JerryNYG : 6:12 am : link : reply
What possible reason is there to support this move by the FCC?
Video - ( New Window )
These same telecom giants have contributed hundreds of millions to congressional campaign coffers over the last 10 years. Which political party do you suppose has been the beneficiary of these donations? Overwhelmingly so. Does it really surprise anyone which way that party swings on this issue?
Does it really surprise anyone that the party in question and current administration has also been slashing funding to consumer rights boards across the country in favor of wealthy corporate interests?
Eric is right. This ruling affects everyone here and shouldn't be political. It's one of the few policy issues that truly is black and white without much nuance. And yet, you see the same echo chamber momos knocking state Attorney Generals, like Eric Schniederman (of whom I'm not fan) for simply trying to, and yes, invariably grandstanding, on an issue that will up screwing millions of American families.
As someone whose political ideology grew up around Reaganesque free market policies, it's a shame that it's since been hijacked to mean something entirely else - giving the American consumer a choice of either getting shafted by Comcast, or getting shafted by Verizon.
Truly an abomination.
I actually feel dumber for having read that.
I'd be willing to read a concise article with simple explanations for why NN is a bad thing....one that doesn't have an obvious slant to it.
Because the article was more interested in disparaging the anchor; not explain the evils of NN.
I mean shit, at least formulate your own opinion on the subject.
Netflix, Facebook, and others are very sanctimonious and hypocritical about this.
Netflix today charges a fee (8.99 per month), but then they have an additional fee if you want more devices to be able to run Netflix simultaneously.
Why is that fair? why is that net neutral? If Comcast told you you can stream one netflix device at a time, but had to pay more they'd be on a Portuguese graphic.
If they were truly concerned with net neutrality and open internet why tier their own service and then complain when others can potentially do the same.
They support it when it helps their bottom line.
I'm shocked to learned that a man that rose through the ranks as a lobbyist for the telecom industry opposes NN rules.
Wait, are you saying corporations only exist to make money!? SHOCKING!
Quote:
They support it when it helps their bottom line.
Wait, are you saying corporations only exist to make money!? SHOCKING!
No, not what I'm saying.
I'm saying people act like Netflix and Facebook and others are pro net neutrality because they care so much about consumers rights and service. But they don't care any more than the telcos.
Do I know = stocks. Jfc autocorrect
Why is that fair? why is that net neutral? If Comcast told you you can stream one netflix device at a time, but had to pay more they'd be on a Portuguese graphic.
If they were truly concerned with net neutrality and open internet why tier their own service and then complain when others can potentially do the same.
Huh?
You buy a car from a dealership. Public roads are free and open. The dealership is under no obligation to provide you additional cars for free simply because the roadway system is free and open.
You obfuscate the roles that Netflix and Comcast have in this ordeal. Two entirely different entities.
I'm saying people act like Netflix and Facebook and others are pro net neutrality because they care so much about consumers rights and service. But they don't care any more than the telcos.
Oh, I completely agree! People need to stop being gullible. These companies would walk over your dead body to make a buck.
But it doesn't mean the public can't align with corporations, if just for a moment, in order to leverage their lobbying power.
My mother passed away in 2009, yet somehow also wrote an FCC comment this past August in support of repealing net neutrality. Apparently, I wrote an FCC comment in July in support of repealing net neutrality. My father, who is 73 and uses the internet solely for the purposes of forwarding chain emails, wrote two FCC comments this summer in support of repealing net neutrality.
The entire thing is shady. People should check their own names and their family members' names.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
My mother passed away in 2009, yet somehow also wrote an FCC comment this past August in support of repealing net neutrality. Apparently, I wrote an FCC comment in July in support of repealing net neutrality. My father, who is 73 and uses the internet solely for the purposes of forwarding chain emails, wrote two FCC comments this summer in support of repealing net neutrality.
The entire thing is shady. People should check their own names and their family members' names. Link - ( New Window )
Thanks for the link. The mfers used me and my address as well. It says I made a comment on July 17th.
This wasn't a good breakdown - this was a guy coming on tv and fudging the facts, and an article written by someone who likely didn't bother to check whether what he said was accurate (which would be typical for the daily caller).
The guest tries to cite the Sherman and Clayton acts as protections that will exist against large web-based companies trying to leverage themselves against competitors, and Ali Velshi points out that there has never been any legal restrictions for companies wanting to charge more for faster speeds.
Velshi is correct, and if you look up the sections of the law that the guest brings up it's easy to see that they don't even apply to the example that was provided to him.
The guest then begins to walk his statement back, first by presenting the strawman that net neutrality wouldn't offer these protections either, and then (in his last comments before the video is cutoff) makes the case that if you're "raising rivals costs" or entering into "exclusive arrangements" then the Sherman and Clayton acts would kick in.
But of course, no one is concerned about antitrust and discrimination practices, the biggest issue is the inevitable price gouging that will be taking place once net neutrality has ended and the immediate effect it will have on individual consumers, small businesses, and tech startups.
Quote:
That would work.....unless ISPs block or throttle VPN services.
IMO, virtually impossible to regulate. VPNs are a universally accepted technology, leveraged by almost every corporation on the planet.
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
Quote:
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
Well, there's the traffic from the host to the VPN. The ISP used by the host can be throttled or blocked too, no?
Quote:
In comment 13742422 santacruzom said:
Quote:
How would a VPN help if the very form of traffic itself is eliminated by all ISP's?
How would that happen?
Again, VPNs are used by virtually every corporation in the world. Millions of Americans use the technology on a daily basis. On what grounds would ISPs halt all VPN connections?
Well, there's the traffic from the host to the VPN. The ISP used by the host can be throttled or blocked too, no?
Sure but who is to say that the host will be in the country?
If the VPN is actually out of the country then that likely won't be an issue, but that in itself could introduce so many potential performance issues that it might not be much better than a throttled connection.
I just don't see VPN as a silver bullet that ISP's are powerless against here, depending on how far they're willing to go. So your ISP can't tell what kind of traffic is occurring in YOUR connection? Fine, but what if they just slow all kinds of a particular traffic from HOSTS who don't pay a premium?