Net Neutrality

[hollywood]

Well, I want to help you guys out, by identifying several of the companies that support "Net Neutrality" regulations.

You know, so you can identify all the anti-business, commie types who obviously want the government to take over and completely control everything on the net. Obviously, we cannot trust these companies to possibly understand the need for net neutrality as they are all clearly a bunch of knuckleheads who don't have a clue as to how the internet works.

Here's a short list for starters:


Airbnb
Amazon.com
AOL
Auction.com!
ebay
Expedia
Facebook
Google
Gilt
LinkedIn
Lyft
Monster.com
Microsoft
Practice Fusion
Rackspace
IAC/InterActiveCorp
reddit
Salesforce.com
Stubhub.com
SurveyMonkey
TripAdvisor
Twitter
Uber
Yahoo!
Yelp
Vonage
Zynga Mozilla
Free Press Action Fund
AVG
iFixit
Shockwired
GSM Nation
QWANT
Imgur
Groove Shark
Wikia
Bluehost
Digital Ocean
Tumblr
Consumers Union
Kickstarter
Etsy
chess.com
Urban Dictionary
Credo Mobile
Free Software Foundation
Computer and Communications Industry Foundation
Help.com
startmail
CheapAir.com
Dreamhost
FourSquare
Vimeo
City Search
Boing Boing
CrowdTilt
Fark.com
Thunderclap

And here's a handful of individuals who likewise don't know WTF they are talking about, when they publicly support the FCC amending the rules to attempt to guarantee net neutrality (again, what a bunch of freaking morons):

Vint Cerf' (father of the internet)
Tim Berners-Lee (inventor of World Wide Web)
Michael Beckerman (Pres. Internet Association)
Barry Diller (former head of Paramount Pictures and Fox Broadcasting)
Steve Wozniak (Apple Computers)
David P Reed (creator of the User Datagram Protocol "UDP")


On the other hand, here's a short list of the dominant players against net neutrality. You will be able to identify them by the US Flag lapel pins their CEO's wear and the fact that the are the most loved companies in America!

Time Warner (dead last in the American Customer Satisfaction Index #229 of 229 companies whose customers were polled)

Comcast (next to last in the American Customer Satisfaction Index #228)

Verizon

AT&T






This post was edited on 2/15 12:57 PM by hollywood

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Here's a list of additional companies against the currently pending net neutrality regulations:

Intel
IBM
Cisco
Juniper Networks
Qualcomm
Panasonic
Ciena
Synacor

 

[Ostatedchi]

Wood, what problem is this legislation trying to solve?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[hollywood]

The reason for the original regulations (net neutrality regs of 2010) was because there was significant evidence that some or most of the ISP's were attempting to basically extort money from a variety of content providers. A prime example, Comcast deliberately retarding the speeds to which Netflix content was being delivered to its paying customers, causing Netflix to be blamed for the issue and it losing customers.

In addition, some ISP's were actually beginning to censor content (example, there was an ISP that was blocking the Urban Dictionary site, among several others).

These are two things which are completely against the ground rules by which the people (govts, private companies, universities, etc.) who set up the internet put into place originally. They realized that a few companies could literally "starve out" those seeking to search the net and retrieve websites, those businesses and individuals doing business or providing content to the net, and that in affect that a relative handful of companies could literally control what we see and place on the net (all content) by manipulating speeds and/or simply blocking content that they didn't like.

This was, and is, to a large degree the status quo: No govt or private control of content or the ability to manipulate the internet for the benefit of a few companies, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of other companies and individuals.

When Comcast, Time-Warner and a number of other ISP's started f'ing around with those conditions (equal distribution to all and no censorship of content) then the people who rely on the net the most starting seeking remedies to stop what they saw as abuses and potential for abuse and harm to the entire free speech and free market side of the net which has contribute so much to the economic growth and ease of communication which has reached the masses.

As such, these companies, institutions and internet experts actually reached out to the FCC to prevent those abuses from happening and the first rules were promulgated in 2010. The ISPs challenged some of those rules and the courts ruled that some of the rules promulgated were invalid on basically technical legal reasons. As such, it was actually in that interim time that Comcast tried screwing over their customers and Netflix by f'ing with the speed at which they conveyed Netflix's signal. Since the court overturned some of the initial regulations, the same people concerned about freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all business and individual users of the net have been asking the FCC to promulgate new rules that would be compliant with the previous court instructions and close some of the loopholes to which the ISP's were once again starting to violate the very key principles upon with the internet was founded.

If you think that somehow this is going to cause new taxes or fees, the FCC's disclosures already state that no new taxes or fees will in anyway result from the new regulations (and they are bound by that promise through the Administrative Procedures Act.) If your concern is about privacy and govt snooping, I would point out that the Elecrtronic Frontier Foundation, which has been in the forefront of the fight against NSA snooping, actually believes the rules are necessary in order to PROTECT privacy, as seen in the linked article below.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/09/open-internet-essential-free-internet-why-net-neutrality-should-matter-everyone

You seem to believe that this is a solution in search of problem, but the reality is that the ISPs have already started and are well down the road to the point they can control what you will be able to read, see or place on the internet either through them throttling you by your wallet, or simply censoring content they may not like. It is under these real world conditions that those supporting net neutrality are asking the FCC to act.

 

[Ostatedchi]

And I can solve every one of those issue in about 15 minutes with current technology. No need for this damned regulation.

 

[hollywood]

Please, tell me how you (in 15 minutes) can prevent Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, etc. from creating pricing tiers which discriminate based on the ability to pay?

Show your work now. Please explain to me how you are going to use technology to control their behavior.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Set your DNS servers to use a 3rd party set such as OpenDNS. (free)
Buy a sub to a VPN service such as Private Internet Access (about 30 bucks per year). Set up your home router to use the VPN tunnel to encrypt your traffic right though the ISP. All they'll see is your encrypted connection and nothing within it. Then they can't manage my content at all. I've even installed it on my smart phone so when I connect to an open WIFI network they can't monitor my usage.

If an ISP started doing what you are saying, people would simply bypass them totally. Hell, content providers would probably simply encrypt their connections. Then you have only one issue, and that is if your ISP uses transparent proxy or explicit proxy. They 'could' decrypt some secure traffic. But when they do they run into all kinds of privacy laws that already exist.

This post was edited on 2/15 3:16 PM by Ostatedchi

 

[inspoke]

Dchi,

Will this solution prevent a website from being able to track your usage of it? If not, do you have a suggestion for this?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by inspoke:

Dchi,

Will this solution prevent a website from being able to track your usage of it? If not, do you have a suggestion for this?

No it wont. But it will stop your ISP from knowing where you are going.

But there are ways around stopping websites from tracking you too. FIrst off, browse in 'incognito' or 'private' mode. Chrome has a 'do not track' feature you can enable as well as multiple plugins that do the same thing. IE has a similar setting. Also, don't browse with an account that has admin privileges on your system.

However, you volunteer a LOT of information to 'free' services on the internet. Facebook is the prime vector. You can set all that up but when you log into Facebook you agree to let them have the data. Same with Google, Bing, etc.

Remember, if you aren't paying for the product; you are the product.



This post was edited on 2/15 4:00 PM by Ostatedchi

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by OSUIvan:
I'm all for small government but I think this is one issue the feds should step in and regulate. Netflix should not have to pay Comcast, Cox, TW etc. a fee to let their videos stream at a high speed.

So under that logic, passengers on a plane shouldn't have the option to pay more for first class service?


And it won't work anyways. There are so many technical solutions to get around that if it happened that it won't ever happen for very long. If my ISP did that to me I'd never know because I'm already set up to bypass my ISP's routing. They don't see my traffic anyway.

That is a red herring argument used to get the government in the regulation door. Once opened, it'll never get shut.

If you could choose between only two airlines and said airlines decided midflight that you needed to "upgrade" to get air conditioning... Well then you might have a case for some governance on the consumers experience.

If we removed the barriers for new network providers to enter markets I would likely agree with you, but the balance of power lies with those who have the infrastructure already in place as it stands.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

Wrong, it is a problem so easily bypassed as to be laughable. It damn sure isn't one that requires government regulation.

I'm a cyber security analyst. Don't insult my intelligence by pointing me to that dumb-assed URL.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

Wrong, it is a problem so easily bypassed as to be laughable. It damn sure isn't one that requires government regulation.

I'm a cyber security analyst. Don't insult my intelligence by pointing me to that dumb-assed URL.

In regards to the link: you stated there is no problem. I replied with evidence of a problem. Please oh please tell us all your grand solution...

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Good thread. Seriously.

 

[hollywood]

Ostatedchi,

So, your trying to convince me that a business (Netflix) with a market cap of $28,000,000,000+, which employees tons of network engineers and experts could not figure out a way to get around getting cut off at the knees and having their content slowed down to a crawl (in affect, making their service worthless to millions of customers) by an ISP, but you could solve their problem in 15 minutes? Amazing!

I don't know why you didn't call them up when that was going down (it's not too late, they're still having some of the same issues to which they are having to pay extra for assure they're getting working download/upload speeds) as I would imagine your services to correct that problem should be worth at least tens of millions of dollars to them.

Now, I don't want you to disclose any "trade secrets" but could you at least give me some basics on how you could pull off, what a company the size of Netflix, with billions upon billions of dollars of resources could not do?

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by hollywood:
Ostatedchi,

So, your trying to convince me that a business (Netflix) with a market cap of $28,000,000,000+, which employees tons of network engineers and experts could not figure out a way to get around getting cut off at the knees and having their content slowed down to a crawl (in affect, making their service worthless to millions of customers) by an ISP, but you could solve their problem in 15 minutes? Amazing!

I don't know why you didn't call them up when that was going down (it's not too late, they're still having some of the same issues to which they are having to pay extra for assure they're getting working download/upload speeds) as I would imagine your services to correct that problem should be worth at least tens of millions of dollars to them.

Now, I don't want you to disclose any "trade secrets" but could you at least give me some basics on how you could pull off, what a company the size of Netflix, with billions upon billions of dollars of resources could not do?

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Wood, care to refute my solution?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[gopokes2003]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

The most condescending person in the thread has been Ostatedchi. He's embarrassed himself on this issue, because it's obvious he knows nothing about it. His solution is for everyone in the country to use a VPN to bypass their ISP. That isn't practical at all. His solution is laughable at best.

The ISPs have challenged the status quo in the past. The FCC has tried to enforce net neutrality but they were challenged in court. The court said the FCC would have to reclassify the ISPs under Title II to maintain the status quo. That's what they're going to do now. They have the power, under the law, to do this. Without government regulation the ISPs will eventually try to make more money by charging for fast lanes or having sponsored data. They will do this because all publicly traded companies, in the US have one main goal. They want to maximize shareholder value. You do this by making money. Republicans will bring up that they'll be punished by the market, but that's not true. Most internet providers are the only provider in a local area. Basically they have local monopolies or monopoly power in the local area. Consumers really have no choice. Republicans claim this will hurt investment. Google has said they can expand Google Fiber, because if broadband is regulated under title II then Google would have access to existing infrastructure to expand. Also, the wireless industry is regulated under title II and investment certainly hasn't been hurt there.

I can see reasons to be for and against this, but this is a broken market on a lot of levels, and it doesn't hurt to actually look at the issues and try to fix them.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by gopokes2003:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

The most condescending person in the thread has been Ostatedchi.

No, I don't think he was condescending, he simply called them out on the issue. These libs, and yes don't let davidallen fool you he's a lib, continually in almost every thread, try and belittle people with their quotations and I'm smarter than you attitude. It's actually humorous, because I know the type of people they are. They like to try and deflect when possible with their 27 paragraph responses of legal mumbo jumbo and resume citations. Funny really.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by gopokes2003:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:


Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your little quotation marks and condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling, although typical of liberals, is tiresome.

The most condescending person in the thread has been Ostatedchi. He's embarrassed himself on this issue, because it's obvious he knows nothing about it. His solution is for everyone in the country to use a VPN to bypass their ISP. That isn't practical at all. His solution is laughable at best.

The ISPs have challenged the status quo in the past. The FCC has tried to enforce net neutrality but they were challenged in court. The court said the FCC would have to reclassify the ISPs under Title II to maintain the status quo. That's what they're going to do now. They have the power, under the law, to do this. Without government regulation the ISPs will eventually try to make more money by charging for fast lanes or having sponsored data. They will do this because all publicly traded companies, in the US have one main goal. They want to maximize shareholder value. You do this by making money. Republicans will bring up that they'll be punished by the market, but that's not true. Most internet providers are the only provider in a local area. Basically they have local monopolies or monopoly power in the local area. Consumers really have no choice. Republicans claim this will hurt investment. Google has said they can expand Google Fiber, because if broadband is regulated under title II then Google would have access to existing infrastructure to expand. Also, the wireless industry is regulated under title II and investment certainly hasn't been hurt there.

I can see reasons to be for and against this, but this is a broken market on a lot of levels, and it doesn't hurt to actually look at the issues and try to fix them.

You actually answered Hollywood's question about why the content vendors aren't proposing this as a solution. They aren't in the business of managing all these endpoints. However, if ISP's started slowing down content, you can bet your rears that users would start doing exactly what I said en mass.

The local ISP having a monopoly is a seperate issue to be handled and I agree it is a problem. But this isn't the method to address it.

 

[hollywood]

Long-duc-dong,

Someone asks for a rundown on what the entirety of "net neutrality" issues are about.

I respond with reasons why basically you've got every major content delivery and the owners of the largest business users of the net in the world, along with free speech advocates, the handful of guys who actually invented the internet, etc. on one side and what amounts to about a dozen or less ISP's (companies which through their contracts with cities and counties around the country who hold between them a monopoly on hundreds of millions of consumer's access points to the net) and what remedies they have petitioned the FCC to provide in order to keep the internet free of content censorship and the creation of "tiers" of service which could be used to squash competition.

Ostatedchi, states that he can resolve both of those concerns in 15 minutes (something apparently internet companies with literally trillions of dollars of value cannot seem to be able to resolve, and you accuse me of being condescending? Do you not for a minute consider the fact that if both of the issues that folks like Vincent Cerf, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, etc. are most concerned about and have asked the FCC to intervene to prevent could be overcome by technology as simple as switching to VPN's that they wouldn't have jumped into the market and provided that solution themselves?

Yes, in a way perhaps I am being a bit condescending in response, because I find the solution he proposed to be incredulous. A big part of that resides in the fact that even if I (as a consumer) attach myself through a VPN, I'm not getting access to that VPN without first going through an ISP. That ISP may not be able to see through the VPN to determine what I am looking at, but they sure as hell know how much bandwith I'm using and could slow my access to a crawl as there's virtually nothing to prevent them from doing so under current conditions.

Good grief, we're talking about something akin to a public utility in that these ISP's have monopoly power over the marketplace. There's a very good reason why virtually everyone on the political spectrum (conservative to liberal) has long espoused the necessity of regulating monopolies to prevent them from abusing their positions of power. I imagine you are familiar with the work of Adam Smith and understand that of all things he opposed, the realization of monopoly power achieved by govt fiat was at the top of the list. Providing regulations on monopoly players in the market, so they cannot use their monopoly powers to harm others is a fundamental underlying proposition that has existed for centuries in a free market economy, because it has the power to warp the market. Just for the same reasons my local/state govt regulates and monitors Electric and NG providers, to stop them (marginally perhaps) from screwing us (the consumer) over, I don't have a gut level opposition to reasonable regulations to keep the ISP's (again who have monopolies in nearly every major consumer market in this country) and I don't see why any conservative would either, given the subject matter of regulation (monopoly power.)

Now, if the regs come out and they are onerous, put taxes on providers or consumers, etc. I am certainly willing to listen to reason and seek removal or amendment or court challenge. But to start out with the position that it is inherently evil to regulate monopolies is way beyond any historical position taken by conservatives from the time Adam Smith graced us with the "Wealth of Nations" where he warned that such regulations were virtually mandatory in order to preserve a free market.

 

[hollywood]

Ostatedchi,

How to I first get to a VPN without going through my local ISP? (being a regular consumer)

What would prevent your ISP from choking your usable bandwith down to slow, slow, slow if their system identified you as using a VPN?

Why has Netflix, Youtube, etc. not used a VPN to provide streaming video and the like from their end? And even if they tried that approach, don't they likewise have to route their signal through and over any number of ISPs?

If the system could be defeated in such a simple method as you claim, why has NO major company (a Google, an Amazon, a Microsoft, etc. -all of whom have asked the FCC to impose net neutrality rules) offered consumers and major providers a simple "turn key" approach to bypassing all restrictions on speeds, content censoring, etc. when accessing the net? (or defeating such attempts by the major ISP's to do so?)

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by hollywood:
Long-duc-dong,

Someone asks for a rundown on what the entirety of "net neutrality" issues are about.

I respond with reasons why basically you've got every major content delivery and the owners of the largest business users of the net in the world, along with free speech advocates, the handful of guys who actually invented the internet, etc. on one side and what amounts to about a dozen or less ISP's (companies which through their contracts with cities and counties around the country who hold between them a monopoly on hundreds of millions of consumer's access points to the net) and what remedies they have petitioned the FCC to provide in order to keep the internet free of content censorship and the creation of "tiers" of service which could be used to squash competition.

Ostatedchi, states that he can resolve both of those concerns in 15 minutes (something apparently internet companies with literally trillions of dollars of value cannot seem to be able to resolve, and you accuse me of being condescending? Do you not for a minute consider the fact that if both of the issues that folks like Vincent Cerf, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerburg, Bill Gates, etc. are most concerned about and have asked the FCC to intervene to prevent could be overcome by technology as simple as switching to VPN's that they wouldn't have jumped into the market and provided that solution themselves?

Yes, in a way perhaps I am being a bit condescending in response, because I find the solution he proposed to be incredulous. A big part of that resides in the fact that even if I (as a consumer) attach myself through a VPN, I'm not getting access to that VPN without first going through an ISP. That ISP may not be able to see through the VPN to determine what I am looking at, but they sure as hell know how much bandwith I'm using and could slow my access to a crawl as there's virtually nothing to prevent them from doing so under current conditions.

Good grief, we're talking about something akin to a public utility in that these ISP's have monopoly power over the marketplace. There's a very good reason why virtually everyone on the political spectrum (conservative to liberal) has long espoused the necessity of regulating monopolies to prevent them from abusing their positions of power. I imagine you are familiar with the work of Adam Smith and understand that of all things he opposed, the realization of monopoly power achieved by govt fiat was at the top of the list. Providing regulations on monopoly players in the market, so they cannot use their monopoly powers to harm others is a fundamental underlying proposition that has existed for centuries in a free market economy, because it has the power to warp the market. Just for the same reasons my local/state govt regulates and monitors Electric and NG providers, to stop them (marginally perhaps) from screwing us (the consumer) over, I don't have a gut level opposition to reasonable regulations to keep the ISP's (again who have monopolies in nearly every major consumer market in this country) and I don't see why any conservative would either, given the subject matter of regulation (monopoly power.)

Now, if the regs come out and they are onerous, put taxes on providers or consumers, etc. I am certainly willing to listen to reason and seek removal or amendment or court challenge. But to start out with the position that it is inherently evil to regulate monopolies is way beyond any historical position taken by conservatives from the time Adam Smith graced us with the "Wealth of Nations" where he warned that such regulations were virtually mandatory in order to preserve a free market.

Honestly Hollywood I believe you're a pretty intelligent person, but you come across as smug in a lot of your responses. I know your legal background is the reason for the long winded, legal filled responses, but sometimes less is more. Instead of running someone down just argue. You're good at it. (Sometimes)

 

[hollywood]

Ostatedchi,

I have one additional question that I have not seen addressed in this thread to this point?

Given that the ISP's hold virtual monopoly power over most consumers/web based business/content providers, what stops them from squashing those businesses which provide competitive services?

For example, what stops Comcast, Verizon, Cox, etc. from simply squeezing the speed of any VOIP provider (who is competing with their own telephony services) such as an Ooma or Vonage to the point they could drive them out of business? Perhaps they could not screw with your service at your home/business if you were to run your service through a VPN, but what stops them from slowing down the speed from the point of origin? (Ooma's or Vonage's access points to the net)?

 

[hollywood]

One last point I want to make.

Some here seem to view this as a "conservative" v "liberal" issue, but that is actually not really the case.

There's view groups out there who are more "conservative" than the Christian Coalition of America which was founded by Pat Robertson. Yet, they have repeatedly voiced their support for Net Neutrality. http://www.cc.org/get_facts_about_net_neutrality

Recent surveys of people who were asked questions about various "net neutrality" issues and who were asked to identify themselves by party membership showed that 85% of Republicans support net neutrality, while only 81% of Democrats did. Now, I'm not one to put a lot of faith in polls (because undoubtedly a lot of people who were polled probably did not understand the underlying issues) but I did find it interesting that when they broke it down to questions like: should ISP's be able to charge different prices for speed of delivery, those numbers stayed nearly identical.

Undoubtedly, there's a number of conservatives who I believe have a valid objection (for reasons of actual principle) and then I believe that there's a number of conservative politicians, who when you look at their political contribution list you may understand why they have now taken the positions they have. (Boehner alone has received more than double that of any other politician in terms of contributions from Comcast and FCC Commissioner and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is a former Assoc, General Counsel for Verizon, one of the leading opponents of NN.)

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by hollywood:
Ostatedchi,

How to I first get to a VPN without going through my local ISP? (being a regular consumer)

What would prevent your ISP from choking your usable bandwith down to slow, slow, slow if their system identified you as using a VPN?

Why has Netflix, Youtube, etc. not used a VPN to provide streaming video and the like from their end? And even if they tried that approach, don't they likewise have to route their signal through and over any number of ISPs?

If the system could be defeated in such a simple method as you claim, why has NO major company (a Google, an Amazon, a Microsoft, etc. -all of whom have asked the FCC to impose net neutrality rules) offered consumers and major providers a simple "turn key" approach to bypassing all restrictions on speeds, content censoring, etc. when accessing the net? (or defeating such attempts by the major ISP's to do so?)

Because those companies don't want the overhead of having to help manage every darned cell phone, tablet, laptop, home network router, etc. I'll be my own best advocate and find a solution that works for me. In fact I've already implimented both of those.

It is clear that this isn't a debate that is going to change anyone's mind. I've given you a viable alternative. Chose to use it or not - I don't really care. This new regulation is coming. We all know that.

Just be careful what you wish for; you just might get it.

 

[Ostatedchi]

One last post and then I'm out.


VPN used to thwart Verison slowdown

 

[hollywood]

I have little doubt that perhaps onesies and twosies may be able to connect through a VPN to get faster service, but what's going to happen if all 40 Million+ subscribers to a company like Verizon tried that approach? Wouldn't numbers like that overwhelm a VPN's ability to keep speeds to such levels as this guy got?

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Originally posted by hollywood:
One last point I want to make.
Some here seem to view this as a "conservative" v "liberal" issue, but that is actually not really the case.

There's view groups out there who are more "conservative" than the Christian Coalition of America which was founded by Pat Robertson. Yet, they have repeatedly voiced their support for Net Neutrality. http://www.cc.org/get_facts_about_net_neutrality

Recent surveys of people who were asked questions about various "net neutrality" issues and who were asked to identify themselves by party membership showed that 85% of Republicans support net neutrality, while only 81% of Democrats did. Now, I'm not one to put a lot of faith in polls (because undoubtedly a lot of people who were polled probably did not understand the underlying issues) but I did find it interesting that when they broke it down to questions like: should ISP's be able to charge different prices for speed of delivery, those numbers stayed nearly identical.
Undoubtedly, there's a number of conservatives who I believe have a valid objection (for reasons of actual principle) and then I believe that there's a number of conservative politicians, who when you look at their political contribution list you may understand why they have now taken the positions they have. (Boehner alone has received more than double that of any other politician in terms of contributions from Comcast and FCC Commissioner and FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai is a former Assoc, General Counsel for Verizon, one of the leading opponents of NN.)

Conservatives get ripped for a supposed herd mentality. Now if we don't get in line lock- step with The Christian Coalition then we're somehow in the wrong. Classic. I view it as the heavy hand of government stepping in where it isn't needed, which will inevitably end up in over- reach and us intended consequences as government once again proves itself inept at tackling a very technical issue ( e.g. Dodd-Frank).

 

[aix_xpert]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

Wrong, it is a problem so easily bypassed as to be laughable. It damn sure isn't one that requires government regulation.

I'm a cyber security analyst. Don't insult my intelligence by pointing me to that dumb-assed URL.

Chi,

One thing to note, while you are technically correct that you have a solution. There are others such as TOR. But as a Cyber Security Analyst, you are ahead of 98% of the people on the net already, and your solution isn't implementable (or even understood) by at least half. Just cause you have a solution that you understand does not mean that a problem doesn't exist. I'm smart enough to drive on one side of the road, but we still put lines on it.

While I'm certainly not a supporter of Obama's politics, and I have concerns about the power this could potentially grant the FCC, the need for some governing body (I prefer ICANN personally) to set the guidelines of net neutrality is important. In the end, this is just a play by the ISPs to get someone to foot the bill since they've way oversold their antiquated networks.
Justin

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by aix_xpert:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
But again, Net Neutrality is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

DChi - I beg to differ. It does exist. We are early on in the problem manifesting but believe me it exists. We have clients on both sides of this (Netflix, BBC, Comcast, TWC).

You might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC as a starting point...

Wrong, it is a problem so easily bypassed as to be laughable. It damn sure isn't one that requires government regulation.

I'm a cyber security analyst. Don't insult my intelligence by pointing me to that dumb-assed URL.

Chi,

One thing to note, while you are technically correct that you have a solution. There are others such as TOR. But as a Cyber Security Analyst, you are ahead of 98% of the people on the net already, and your solution isn't implementable (or even understood) by at least half. Just cause you have a solution that you understand does not mean that a problem doesn't exist. I'm smart enough to drive on one side of the road, but we still put lines on it.

While I'm certainly not a supporter of Obama's politics, and I have concerns about the power this could potentially grant the FCC, the need for some governing body (I prefer ICANN personally) to set the guidelines of net neutrality is important. In the end, this is just a play by the ISPs to get someone to foot the bill since they've way oversold their antiquated networks.
Justin

I said I was out but your post is great and finally hit on the true root cause of this situation.

A few thoughts:
I wouldn't want to traverse the TOR network.
Most don't understand but there'd be companies spring up to do it for them.
If ISP's did this, I think you'd see the local governments review their monopolistic contracts - which is a huge concern.

You said, " this is just a play by the ISPs to get someone to foot the bill". You are totally correct and the root of the issue. This is about who's going to pay for the next generation of updates. It'll be us the consumer regardless if the ISP or the content provider who charges us.

 

[hollywood]

Marshal...Duncan - "Conservatives get ripped for a supposed herd mentality. Now if we don't get in line lock- step with The Christian Coalition then we're somehow in the wrong. Classic."

I'd love to understand your reasoning behind drawing the conclusion from my post, that if you don't follow the Christian Coalition's stance on the topic that you are in the wrong? I merely pointed to them as an example of a clearly conservative group who favors net neutrality.

Did you fail to read or acknowledge that part of my post where I acknowledged that there were a number of conservatives who I said had raised valid objections for principle based reasons? Or did you just choose to get butt-hurt by me providing an example of a conservative group in favor of FCC action?

BTW, the FCC isn't just butting in here on their own accord, they have actually received hundreds of petitions and letters from individuals, industry groups and small business owners actually asking them to step in and stop what they thought was a problem. The FCC received an historic number of public comments (millions beyond anything any other govt agency had ever received before), with the vast majority of the those submitting comments urging the agency to preserve net neutrality. While you and others may not believe that net neutrality or the regulation of monopolies to ensure its continuance is really an issue, I would simply note that millions upon millions of folks out there, many of whose livelihoods depend upon net neutrality obviously do. As part of a representative democracy, do you not think that govt should respond to their concerns?

 

[Ostatedchi]

Originally posted by hollywood:
I would simply note that millions upon millions of folks out there, many of whose livelihoods depend upon net neutrality obviously do. As part of a representative democracy, do you not think that govt should respond to their concerns?

Sounds like the exact same argument from proponents of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc.

I mean hell, if the mob wants it and elects representatives to enact it.. well hell, sounds like it must be the right thing to do. Damn, wish I'd thought of that. The minority has no rights the majority can't take away from them.

Solid argument councilor.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

Why F'in bring it up, then? Tell, me wise one, what was the point?

 

[hollywood]

Because, oh I don't know......it was representative of the point I was making, that net neutrality is not necessarily a Rep/Dem or Con/Lib issue as there are many conservatives and conservative groups who favor the regulations, just as polls show 85% of Republicans familiar with Net Neutrality support it.

You see, when you make a claim it's often considered a good thing to actually give a citation or example that supports what you're saying. I didn't know that on the politics site that this was considered a no-no, my apologies - next time I'll just pull something out of my ass without citing anything supporting it.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by Ostatedchi:
Set your DNS servers to use a 3rd party set such as OpenDNS. (free)
Buy a sub to a VPN service such as Private Internet Access (about 30 bucks per year). Set up your home router to use the VPN tunnel to encrypt your traffic right though the ISP. All they'll see is your encrypted connection and nothing within it. Then they can't manage my content at all. I've even installed it on my smart phone so when I connect to an open WIFI network they can't monitor my usage.

If an ISP started doing what you are saying, people would simply bypass them totally. Hell, content providers would probably simply encrypt their connections. Then you have only one issue, and that is if your ISP uses transparent proxy or explicit proxy. They 'could' decrypt some secure traffic. But when they do they run into all kinds of privacy laws that already exist.

This post was edited on 2/15 3:16 PM by Ostatedchi

LOL


Yeah, 4k streams through a clogged VPN endpoint.... brilliant.

 

[davidallen]

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your ... condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling... is tiresome.

Ironic much?

 

[hollywood]

Yes, Ostatedchi ....... you got me.

Because the majority of people wanting a monopoly regulated so it cannot unreasonably profit or take advantage from its government granted (via local contracts with government entities) monopoly standard is exactly the same as the majority voting to strip their fellow citizens of their Constitutional rights and the government going along with it.

I mean, damn...those two things are exactly the same! I don't know why before I didn't recognize that the state's regulation of OGE, ONG and the federal regulations of phone service providers equals the majority subjecting the minority of folks in this country to the institution of slavery, segregation and has established Jim Crow as the law of the land.

I mean I've seen some freakin hyperbole in my life, but to try and conflate the notion of the near necessity of regulating a government granted monopoly (to protect the free market and consumers) with the idea that the government could use the same line of reasoning to strip people of their rights is so preposterous that your suggestion is laughable.

 

[Ostatedchi]

Wood, you are the one using the same logic that segregation proponents used to justify their legislation.

I'm all for breaking up the ISP monopolies. This regulation won't do that at all.

 

[long-duc-dong]

Originally posted by davidallen:

Originally posted by long-duc-dong:

Will there ever be an instance where you ask a question without all your ... condescension? Your petty attempts at belittling... is tiresome.

Ironic much?

Nope.