Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Net Neutrality vote coming up - call your rep, sign petition, post on FB to tell others - SOMETHING!

RogueRose - 21-11-2017 at 23:32

Well the Trump admin has decided to give the ISP a HUGE Christmas present and give the "little people" a bag of coal ash/sludge/tailings by deciding to end net neutrality. for those who don't know what it is, You NEED to find out. Here is a very informative video clip by John Oliver (love him or hate him - he covers the topic very well for those who don't know). It basically gives TONS of power to the big tech companies (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Ebay and the ISP's and allowing them to get much faster service than small sites like SciMad).
https://youtu.be/92vuuZt7wak


What you can do (AND DO IT ASAP!!!!!)
Call your rep(s)
Sign the petition
Send letter to FCC (maybe type "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" on the outside of the envelope so they know immediately it is important - time wise)
Post on your Facebook, other forums and other social media so your friends will hear about it.
Here is a great page that links to everything above and shows how to do it
http://mashable.com/2017/07/12/net-neutrality-day-of-action-...

Here is a GREAT article from ARS Technica about the importance of Net Neutrality and how it will effect everyone (especially retail users and smaller websites like this one and small business websites).

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/rip-net-neutrali...



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/net-neutrality...

VSEPR_VOID - 22-11-2017 at 00:42

It is not the place of the government to regulate the activities of private companies so long as they are not initialing force. In the United States we place Freedom above all else, and yes, this includes the freedom for a private internet provider to limit the content they provide. Freedom never guarantees order, happiness, or fairness. It only guarantees choice. One thing that everyone has now is the ability to change service providers, kickstart/invent an alternative, or just download the Tor browser. Don't force your own opinions about net neutrality onto anyone else by using the power of the Federal government. That being said its a good thing to contact your local representatives about issues you care about. If those political parasites are going to eat up our tax dollars we should put their feet to the fire.

Please also format your posts in a manor that more resembles something that looks like it was written to convey meaningful information. All caps writing is hard on the eyes just as Christmas metaphors are out of season until Thanksgiving.



[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]

[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]

1477133624993.png - 106kB

aga - 22-11-2017 at 01:36

The flip side of Net Neutrality is that the people who operate the nuts-n-bolts of the actual network that people call 'Internet' have been robbed continuously by the big corps, all in the name of 'Net Neutrality'.

Youtube, Google, Facebook, Netflix etc have made billions by using 'free' bandwidth, paid for and provided by the operators, e.g. Adverts from which only they benefit.

As an operator, i would be very happy to see an end to Net Neutrality, as i could legally charge for the vast amount of bandwidth the Ad traffic uses, which requires continuous investment in faster and faster kit as the tech becomes available.

It's either an end to neutrality, or back to per-byte billing.
(at $0.001 per byte i'd be a trillionaire tomorrow morning)

JJay - 22-11-2017 at 01:39

Net Neutrality is a good idea, but it needs to be established by legislation rather than the decree of a federal agency without lawful authority to establish it.

VSEPR_VOID - 22-11-2017 at 01:44

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Net Neutrality is a good idea, but it needs to be established by legislation rather than the decree of a federal agency without lawful authority to establish it.


Yes, legislation is more congruent to the intent of the founding fathers than the decree of the President. I disagree that net neutrality is a good idea for the reasons in my original post. What convinces you of your position?

JJay - 22-11-2017 at 04:14

The insides of Internet packets are none of an ISP's business, and ISPs do not belong in a position where they can place restrictions on free speech.

aga - 22-11-2017 at 05:58

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
The insides of Internet packets are none of an ISP's business, and ISPs do not belong in a position where they can place restrictions on free speech.

As an ISP i can agree with that 99.9%*

The argument is really about the sheer volume of unsolicited packets.

Un-metered internet packages were introduced as a sales advantage, also to benefit the end user.

Advertisers are taking advantage of that and ramming their undesired 'important messages' though networks that they pay nothing for.

It's a bit like 1 person going to an all-you-can-eat-for-$10 diner and having 200 hungry salesmen hiding under the table.

* there are some packets that should never exist. The originators definitely need to be either dead or in prison, e.g. child porn.

[Edited on 22-11-2017 by aga]

RogueRose - 22-11-2017 at 07:48

Quote: Originally posted by VSEPR_VOID  
It is not the place of the government to regulate the activities of private companies so long as they are not initialing force. In the United States we place Freedom above all else, and yes, this includes the freedom for a private internet provider to limit the content they provide. Freedom never guarantees order, happiness, or fairness. It only guarantees choice. One thing that everyone has now is the ability to change service providers, kickstart/invent an alternative, or just download the Tor browser. Don't force your own opinions about net neutrality onto anyone else by using the power of the Federal government. That being said its a good thing to contact your local representatives about issues you care about. If those political parasites are going to eat up our tax dollars we should put their feet to the fire.

Please also format your posts in a manor that more resembles something that looks like it was written to convey meaningful information. All caps writing is hard on the eyes just as Christmas metaphors are out of season until Thanksgiving.



[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]

[Edited on 22-11-2017 by VSEPR_VOID]


Please show how I wrote in all caps. the words that were caps that aren't "supposed" to be but were capitalized to add emphasis or urgency are "huge, need, tons & great" and "AND DO IT ASAP" (whoops sorry bout that...) maybe 1-2% of the total words. The "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" was written how I would write it on the exterior of an envelope to draw attention.

Just because things are capitalized it doesn't mean yelling or screaming - it can be for emphasis or to show importance - at least that is what I've learned from all the internet posts and writing I've seen.

I really can't believe you made a comment about this on a topic like this. If it was all caps or mostly, I'd understand, but I think you are a little touchy.



On the real topic, I was unaware of some of the aspects mentioned in the replies. From the reports I've seen it seemed that the major tech companies would get priority bandwidth while smaller sites suffered in lower prioritization or less bandwidth. The the ISP's would have the authority to make sites they don't like basically unusable by reducing allowable bandwidth or priority in data requests.

I believe that the Internet is a utility and we pay taxes and fees (which are a tax) that support the infrastructure to allow everyone to connect to whomever they like and do whatever they like (yeah CP is not something I nor anyone I know support). So if an ISP doesn't like a blog because of the political leanings then they can make the site almost unusable to it's customers (if not blocking it all together).

As for having choices about choosing a different provider, well that may be the case in some areas but in some places (in the US) they are lucky to get speeds a little faster than dialup of 20+ years ago (some places still only have dialup). The satellite argument is a non-starter for many people b/c it is priced out or many people's price range and service can be pretty bad to horrible. the fact that the ISP's have gotten TONS of money from the gov over the years as well as being able to keep all the "taxes and fees" that you see on your bill mean that the ISP's shouldn't be able to pick and choose what they allow access to or allow different speeds to different sites.

As far as the advertisers pushing their ads onto users computers, I'm 100% against that as well and it is one of the things I hate most.

aga - 22-11-2017 at 09:45

Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose  
... if an ISP doesn't like a blog because of the political leanings then they can make the site almost unusable to it's customers (if not blocking it all together).

That would only work for small, less popular sites, which would not create any gain for the ISP.

Blocking something like FB would just cause the customers to switch providers.

A cranky ISP randomly blocking stuff would soon disappear.
Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose  
The satellite argument is a non-starter for many people b/c it is priced out or many people's price range and service can be pretty bad to horrible.

Satellite does work pretty well (in good weather) and for about 50 euros a month.

The thing is, it is a weird experience. The inherent > 1000ms latency causes you to wonder if you clicked something, so you click it again, then, all of a sudden, the entire page content appears all at once, twice.
Quote: Originally posted by RogueRose  
... the fact that the ISP's have gotten TONS of money from the gov over the years ...

Gimme that gov's phone number. I want some.

There is just a small extra annual tax for being registered as an ISP here (Spain).

The USA is a whole different ball game - the Freedom to Favour Big Money tends to do a lot of harm to small start-ups.

unionised - 22-11-2017 at 12:16

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
The flip side of Net Neutrality is that the people who operate the nuts-n-bolts of the actual network that people call 'Internet' have been robbed continuously by the big corps, all in the name of 'Net Neutrality'.



Are you allowed to strike for higher pay?

aga - 22-11-2017 at 12:37

Sadly not.

Going on strike would simply lead to No Pay.

Twospoons - 22-11-2017 at 13:50

I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil: ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in the US.

Lurker - 22-11-2017 at 14:20

Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons  
I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil: ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in the US.

But the consequences would surely extend to other countries sooner or later, they could (or will) eventually reach you.

aga - 22-11-2017 at 14:32

ISPs mostly do not care what You access on your connection (unless you use their service for something illegal).

They DO care how much is used by 3rd parties using Your connection for free to send you shit you never asked for.

What is a 'connection to the internet' ?
Is it a license to 100% absorb a local resource for free (or next to) and deprive your neighbours of any internet at all ?

If your car uses 5 gallons of petrol (gasoline) this week, do you expect to pay More, or Less next week when you use 20 gallons ?

You expect to pay the same ? No, you'd expect to pay more.

Internet supply is kinda strange as people have no concept of what it is or what is required to make it work, so somehow assume it is all Free - it isn't. It costs a Lot, daily.

Imagine the cost of putting in a bundle of fibre optic cables from the USA to Europe. Is that free ?
No, so why should people be able to use all of it's capacity, and for next to nothing ?

This kind of user attitude is forcing ISPs back to some form of metered billing, so you pay for what you use.
That way You will pay to receive those 'important messages' from advertisers, not Us.

Mobile providers have already gone half-way with the 'Data Allowance' thing.
20Gb for $100 a month etc. ($0.50 per Mb after that in the small print = Fortunes as you watch FB ads without even noticing)

Twospoons - 22-11-2017 at 16:45

Every 'unlimited data' contract I've seen has a fair use clause, which basically means if you try to download terabytes a day the ISP has the right to stop you. I would have thought the cost of the unlimited data contract would be determined with that in mind, and typical usage patterns. And frankly I doubt that advertising makes up a very big percentage of my daily usage, especially compared to streaming Netflix.

You also seem to be making out that we're getting data for next to nothing. But the bill arrives every month - and its a lot more than nothing.


Melgar - 22-11-2017 at 18:45

Quote: Originally posted by VSEPR_VOID  
Yes, legislation is more congruent to the intent of the founding fathers than the decree of the President. I disagree that net neutrality is a good idea for the reasons in my original post. What convinces you of your position?

I can only imagine trying to sit George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al. down and explaining net neutrality to them. Would they have an opinion? Would it matter?

I miss Barack Obama. At least when he was president, you got the sense that he actually understood problems, and had the country's best interests in mind when he was making decisions. The current occupant of the office seems to have only sought it as a means to inflate his own ego beyond its already enormous proportions, and seems to have little interest in actually governing.

macckone - 23-11-2017 at 09:39

There seems to be a lot of misconceptions about what 'net neutrality' means and how bandwidth is charged and transmitted in the US. And
more importantly that this is a US issue.

1) Net Neutrality is more than just keeping comcast from blocking facebook.
It also includes googles ability to lay fiber in right of ways. This applies to companies both big and small. If net neutrality goes away so do choices as the dominant player that had contracts that were ruled unenforceable due to net neutrality go back into effect and the local carrier can now kick out competitors under their 'exclusive' right to the right of way. This has a major impact on small local service providers who will be shut out.

2) google, facebook, et al pay a ton of money for bandwidth, it isn't free. They pay companies like centurylink and cogent for internet access. Centurylink then works deals with companies like comcast and charter to exchange that data. These peering agreements generally have charges if there is a traffic imbalance. For a small provider that has to pay centurylink and cogent for that same access it sucks because centurylink and cogent are making money on both ends.

3) yes at&t and comcast can block specific posts not just 'all of facebook', they can also substitute their own ads if net neutrality goes away. That is what aga is really wanting. comcast and at&t have previously done this, so this isn't hypothetical, this is why net neutrality came to be in the first place. People forget when comcast blocked netflix, and they will again. And this time they will block hulu and anyone else they see as competition.

4) this mainly impacts last mile customers with no alternatives, which is 80% of us residences. I am one of those customers. I pay $100 for 5M/512K internet. I have no other wire line choices and I need internet that works when it is raining and snowing.

aga - 23-11-2017 at 10:25

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
I pay $100 for 5M/512K internet.

I am honestly shocked.

Here your $100 a month would get you :-

300Mb/s symmetric/unlimited fibre
free mobile phone calls to any mobile or land line number (not international)
20Gb mobile data allowance (4G, so a max of 100Mb/s on your phone, normally ~20Mb/s)
about $3 change.

With no land line option a wifi provider could get you around 6~10Mb/s for around $40.

If $100 is the level of the market, the ISPs are raking it in, so it smells ripe for invasion.

Anyone over there feel like starting up a WiFi Internet business ? U2U if so.

macckone - 23-11-2017 at 11:41

I can get wifi but it is even more expensive. Plus without utility attachment rights, you can't really establish a wifi business.

metalresearcher - 23-11-2017 at 11:42

Quote: Originally posted by Twospoons  
I thought the ISP's job was to sell you a connection to the internet, not decide what you should or shouldn't do with it. Which is the lesser evil: ISP's loss of freedom to throttle some websites, or the customer's loss of freedom to wander the internet unimpeded? Makes me glad I'm not living in the US.


For me the same and with that retired real estate businessman who is called a "president" things are getting worse...

aga - 23-11-2017 at 12:07

Quote: Originally posted by macckone  
I can get wifi but it is even more expensive. Plus without utility attachment rights, you can't really establish a wifi business.

Wifi more expensive than wired sounds crazy to me.

Would you mind giving a brief explanation what 'utility attachment rights' are please ?

macckone - 23-11-2017 at 17:02

In the US, in order to get fiber to towers for wifi for example you have to get right of way to lay the fiber, either on telephone poles or existing underground right of ways. This is also necessary for wired to the home connections. If you don't have 'utility attachement rights' you can't use existing cell towers or telephone poles to mount any equipment. This means you will need to negotiate with each individual land owner to put up your own towers or with a competitor to use their tower and they can charge whatever they want. Under the US net neutrality rules, you would be allowed to attach to existing utilities at a 'fair market' rate. Meaning they couldn't price gouge you or refuse to allow you access. Before net neutrality many ISPs got contracts with existing providers to give them exclusive rights to use their right of ways for internet service. With net neutrality those contracts became illegal so players like google could now lay fiber as a utility. Those new fibers that depend on being a 'utility' would no longer have valid rights and would now be subject to removal.

Texium - 23-11-2017 at 17:15

Wow macckone, that is some seriously expensive internet. I pay $60/month for 100 Mb/s. Split the bill with my two roommates (so just $20 for each of us) and it's plenty of bandwidth to go around.

macckone - 23-11-2017 at 18:16

Yeah, I live in an underserved area so I don't get the good rates.

Twospoons - 23-11-2017 at 18:46

When you explain it that way net neutrality makes even more sense for the consumer, and I realise thats pretty much what we've had for some years in NZ. Some years back our gov forced our biggest, and original, telco to split off the infrastructure side into a separate business. This was done to level the playing field for other ISPs. Along with local loop unbundling, this has given us plenty of ISPs to choose from, plenty of competition, and all the consumer benefits that come from that.

Spark, the telco that was forced to split, still made $400 million in profit last year, so despite the screaming, they're still doing just fine.

We're also fortunate that our gov sees broadband as a huge economic benefit, both to individuals and the country, so is laying fiber around the whole country, instead of waiting for private companies to do it. Sometimes a little socialism is a good thing eh?

[Edited on 24-11-2017 by Twospoons]

macckone - 23-11-2017 at 21:02

Funny thing is that I literally have a large long haul fiber bundle that passes under my driveway. It carries data for three of the largest internet websites at 100G. But I can't
access any of it at home but I have all the bandwidth I could possibly use at work, I just
can't use it for browsing the things I want. Like this website.

aga - 23-11-2017 at 23:28

Thanks for the explantions macckone - definitely an eye-opener, for me at least.

I had assumed that the USA would have already rolled out high speed internet to just about every nook and cranny.

Melgar - 28-11-2017 at 02:24

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
Thanks for the explantions macckone - definitely an eye-opener, for me at least.

I had assumed that the USA would have already rolled out high speed internet to just about every nook and cranny.

My parents live in rural upstate New York and had dial-up until 2012. Now they can get DSL, but it used to be that DSL was only available if you were 3 miles or less from the hub, which is generally in a town. Newer DSL extends that range quite a bit, but my parents live in an area with a lot of Amish, so there wasn't exactly a huge demand for broadband there. They did finally get it though. There are government subsidies for expanding broadband to underserved areas, and "broadband" is defined as being 500 kBps or more. It used to be less. It's kind of funny how the download speed there tops out at whatever the minimum legal definition of "broadband" is at the time. Not that I mind, anything is better than dial-up.

Lurker - 15-12-2017 at 09:30

So... What now?

JJay - 15-12-2017 at 09:31

Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
Net Neutrality is a good idea, but it needs to be established by legislation rather than the decree of a federal agency without lawful authority to establish it.