Net Neutrality Thrown Out

[Sky Aisling]

EDIT: jpeps has started another thread here:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 232#751232
Perhaps we could combine the threads to keep the discussion in one thread?

Advocates of a free and open Internet could see this coming, but today's ruling from a Washington appeals court striking down the FCC's rules protecting the open net was worse than the most dire forecasts. It was "even more emphatic and disastrous than anyone expected," in the words of one veteran advocate for network neutrality.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit thoroughly eviscerated the Federal Communications Commission's latest lame attempt to prevent Internet service providers from playing favorites among websites--awarding faster speeds to sites that pay a special fee, for example, or slowing or blocking sites and services that compete with favored affiliates.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... 2106.story

an appeals court challenge to U.S. equal treatment rules for the Internet that could leave companies such as Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. facing higher charges for the fastest service.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-1 ... t-fcc.html

[jpeps]

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 232#751232

[Moose On The Loose]

an appeals court challenge to U.S. equal treatment rules for the Internet that could leave companies such as Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. facing higher charges for the fastest service.

People seem to think that it will just be "higher fees". There is nothing that says that the network company has to set a fee. They can simply refuse to grant the faster speed all together. Thus XYZ company can give you full speed on going to the XYZ video store and the equivalent of 300 Baud on going to all other video stores.

This is the somewhat predictable thing happening to the internet as happened to the radio and TV industry. New media technologies tend to start out as open systems as evolve towards a closed system. We already have had many steps in that direction. It is likely that most US users who read this are already on a network that won't allow a packet to port 25 to pass.

[Sky Aisling]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

[Moose On The Loose]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

I already knew all that. The report is a bit superficial. They missed some very important issues in the question like what may happen to those who get internet from the cable company and the idea that some sites and services can be completely blocked.

[jpeps]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

I already knew all that. The report is a bit superficial. They missed some very important issues in the question like what may happen to those who get internet from the cable company and the idea that some sites and services can be completely blocked.

The whole issue is probably moot with availability of high speed bandwidth continuing to increase. That assumes, of course, that the natural course of development isn't crippled by costly and inept regulations.

[gcmartin]

The title in this thread is shared by many who know of the reasons that Net Neutrality "required" FCC intervention such that small or individual ISP would NOT be forced into servitude of the Large Powerful ISPs.

This court decision allows the "very bad behavior" which caused the citizen rights group to call for federal intervention. Thus, there are 2 directions that are now off and running: Appeal of the decision by the courts AND the US Legislative body (and we all know what does guys do for corporates).

I am hopeful that this court decision is overturned allowing the FCC rule for Net Neutrality to continue where NO ISP can deny traffic or control citizen's on-ramp activity.

Remember, the Net Neutrality decision started when it was found out that the BIG ISP was interrogating our internet traffic such that they could hostage how traffic could be used for their personal benefits.

This is NOT about asking the government to get out, this is about whether the government could exercise a decision which protect citizen internet traffic for corporate controls as they look at you traffic and your use of the internet. The reason the BIG ISP spends this kind of money to fight this decision means there is BIG money for them by getting this decision overturned. There is NOTHING in the decision that is directed at citizen benefit. It was made for corporate interest and benefit.

Now, citizens have to hope the decision is overturned ... somehow.

BTW, name any body of Internet standards bodies that have or are dealing with this area of internet traffic and use. ... NONE!

Hope this helps in understanding

[Moose On The Loose]

What is 'net neutrality' and how does it affect you?

http://www.khon2.com/news/national-news ... affect-you

I already knew all that. The report is a bit superficial. They missed some very important issues in the question like what may happen to those who get internet from the cable company and the idea that some sites and services can be completely blocked.

The whole issue is probably moot with availability of high speed bandwidth continuing to increase. That assumes, of course, that the natural course of development isn't crippled by costly and inept regulations.

No, the issue certainly is not made moot by the increase in speed. If the ISP is also the company that wishes to sell you videos and there is another competing company that they do not allow packets to fly to and from, all the speed in the world doesn't matter. Your access to the competitor is blocked and thus you either buy from your ISP or not at all.

[Moose On The Loose]

I am hopeful that this court decision is overturned allowing the FCC rule for Net Neutrality to continue where NO ISP can deny traffic or control citizen's on-ramp activity.

I hold out no such hope. The best we can really hope for is that the internet becomes closed slowly enough that something else will replace it as the open system. In the early days of newspapers basically anyone could start a paper. In the early days of radio there were lots of different people with stations. The same with TV. It seems to be one of those unstoppable forces of nature that new media starts open and gradually becomes closed.

[jpeps]

It seems to be one of those unstoppable forces of nature that new media starts open and gradually becomes closed.

Ultimately, public opinion wins out. It's even happening in North Korea to some extent. A government has to keep the public believing that they are being protected to survive, so they get a bit concerned if people start communicating amongst themselves. We can see that with the NSA and Snowden. The problem is the idiots who believe that government agencies will act in their best interests. Invariably, they will follow the money or direction of whoever holds the authority.

Your access to the competitor is blocked and thus you either buy from your ISP or not at all.

Unlikely we're going back to the days of government sanctioned telecommunication monopolies

[gcmartin]

Ultimately, public opinion wins out. ...

Publlic opinion ONLY wins when there are NO lobbyists present. Where lobbyist are present, public loses. Unless there is a TREMENDOUS rise in the public sea. (So far, not seen in about 50 years in US).

Just an observation by my un-informed look.

Net Neutrality was put in place to support public freedom of access on the internet. It also stands to NOT allow your ISP to intercept streams from one website and substitute their own content replacing the original website's content such that we, the user, do not know it is being done as the streams flow back to our browser(s).

[Moose On The Loose]

It seems to be one of those unstoppable forces of nature that new media starts open and gradually becomes closed.

Ultimately, public opinion wins out.

A solid majority don't like a whole lot of things that have happened. Public opinion only wins when that opinion results in a strongly enough motivated public. When there is a special interest that is strongly motivated in the other direction, the public very often loses out.

It's even happening in North Korea to some extent

The government of N. Korea enjoys very strong public support. The public gets its "news" from a very biased source.

A government has to keep the public believing that they are being protected to survive, so they get a bit concerned if people start communicating amongst themselves.

Yes, and this is a reason for the government to throw there weight in with the corporations. Both want to prevent the public from talking among themselves. Corporations want to be able to sell you the videos and/or sell your viewing to the advertisers. Those in government want to get re-elected. Corporations hire lobbyists and also pay for campaign ads etc to get the people they want into office so to get re-elected the politicians want to play ball with the corporations.

We can see that with the NSA and Snowden

Actually, the NSA listened in. They did not prevent communications they copied communications and this is totally off the topic of net neutrality.

The problem is the idiots who believe that government agencies will act in their best interests.

The problem is the idiots who believe that corporations will act in their best interests.

They want to end up with all the money. That is what they care about. That is all they care about. Legally it is the required nature of a publicly traded corporation to be exactly like that. If the folks running it do not work to optimize stock value, they are committing a crime.

Your access to the competitor is blocked and thus you either buy from your ISP or not at all.

Unlikely we're going back to the days of government sanctioned telecommunication monopolies[/quote]

No, we are going to go like radio and TV are. A few large corporations will control the whole thing and you can get your internet from them on their terms or live in a cave. The oldest form of radio is the AM dial. Check out how many corporations control almost all of the AM dial. That is the way the trend goes over time.

[jpeps]

Attempts to control media by repressive governments are becoming increasingly futile. What's going on in North Korea has been almost daily news for months. Even Frontline just did a documentary on it. Millions of youth are getting DVD's, flashdrives, etc., that get smuggled across the border. The result is increasing questioning of authority. This is the reason that governments want to control the internet (and control you...thus NSA).

I have no problem with businesses making profits. That's the incentive and reward for making a superior product. Most businesses fail, because it's not an easy proposition. When they fail, employees lose jobs.

You can be scared of anything, but ease of connectivity and networking will continue to progress...exponentially. It's just good business. The problem will be maintaining your identity, not being bombarded with cheap/available bandwidth. The parallel to AM radio is that content is aimed at the masses, so you'll have to look harder for quality.

[Moose On The Loose]

This is the reason that governments want to control the internet (and control you...thus NSA).

You seem not to understand the difference between copying all the information and control.

I have no problem with businesses making profits. That's the incentive and reward for making a superior product. Most businesses fail, because it's not an easy proposition. When they fail, employees lose jobs.

Neither do I have a problem with businesses making profits. In the case of the corporation, that is part of purpose. Corporations are purely a legal and accounting fiction created by government in an effort to make the economy run more efficiently. To suggest that there is a problem with them making a profit is to misunderstand their very nature. They are the very essence of the amoral actor in the economy. To assign them a moral property is very sloppy thinking committed by both those on the right and the left.

You can be scared of anything, but ease of connectivity and networking will continue to progress...exponentially.

Why to you try to associate fear with what is just my take on the way things will go based on the history I pointed out and logical arguments?

It's just good business.

I see no reason to believe that it is good business. You seem to be assuming global optimization when the market logically does local optimization and businesses are very much into local optimization. They do not act for the purpose of making money for other businesses. The act for the purpose of making money. Hence the optimization is local by its nature.

The problem will be maintaining your identity, not being bombarded with cheap/available bandwidth. The parallel to AM radio is that content is aimed at the masses, so you'll have to look harder for quality.

As with AM radio (at least where I live), there simply won't be any quality to seek. Since the most profit is to be had by targeting the masses and the ISPs will have the ability to constrict the access, the small content maker will be a thing of the past.

You will be allowed to access what they permit you to access in much the same way as with radio and TV. The increasing bandwidth will slow down as the profit to be made from more bandwidth decreases. It will settle to some state. The ISPs will be all up in arms when whatever new media comes along next. I don't see any reason to expect otherwise.

[jpeps]

I don't see any reason to expect otherwise.

Clearly, given what you consider to be brilliant, clear logic. However, the future of technology isn't likely to be fettered by your thinking.

[jpeps]

“The most extreme 0.1% of all users consume nearly half of all downlink LTE data,

[NickAu]

an appeals court challenge to U.S. equal treatment rules for the Internet that could leave companies such as Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. facing higher charges for the fastest service.

People seem to think that it will just be "higher fees". There is nothing that says that the network company has to set a fee. They can simply refuse to grant the faster speed all together. Thus XYZ company can give you full speed on going to the XYZ video store and the equivalent of 300 Baud on going to all other video stores.

This is the somewhat predictable thing happening to the internet as happened to the radio and TV industry. New media technologies tend to start out as open systems as evolve towards a closed system. We already have had many steps in that direction. It is likely that most US users who read this are already on a network that won't allow a packet to port 25 to pass.

In Australia if you have a cell/mobile phone with Telstra and subscribe to Foxtell its an Un metered service In other words watch all the foxtell you like( after paying about 20 dollars a month for fox as an extra subscription) and it has no impact on your monthly download allowance and the movies seem to play without having to buffer first. Also you can rent movies from the same company and download them without any limits on downloads( in gigabytes) of the movies you rent provided you also have Telstra broad account. I do not know if they block access to any pages. Telstra is Big pond movies and owns a chunk of foxtell and by doing things like that are just protecting an investment I guess.http://bigpondmovies.com/

[Moose On The Loose]

In Australia if you have a cell/mobile phone with Telstra and subscribe to Foxtell its an Un metered service In other words watch all the foxtell you like( after paying about 20 dollars a month for fox as an extra subscription) and it has no impact on your monthly download allowance and the movies seem to play without having to buffer first. Also you can rent movies from the same company and download them without any limits on downloads( in gigabytes) of the movies you rent provided you also have Telstra broad account. I do not know if they block access to any pages. Telstra is Big pond movies and owns a chunk of foxtell and by doing things like that are just protecting an investment I guess.http://bigpondmovies.com/

Nations do things differently. The US started the internet but is now falling behind many other developed nations on many of the statistics about it. Part of this is likely due to the fact that those who started a bit later could use better hardware. Many also saw it as infrastructure that would help the economy (like roads and a phone system) and invested a lot in making a good system.

[gcmartin]

Hi @NickAu

What you share seems to be a form of Net Neutrality. It appears to provide a sense of fair-play for access to the consumer. But, as you note there is something inter-wined that is allowing this sense of fair-play, and as such, there is incentive and value to the consumer.

Let's look, for a moment, at US. What started this is when one LARGE ISP decided that it did NOT want its consumers to "see" content from someone else's site (another LARGE ISP). So they first started with blockage, then substitution. Then the other site responded similarly, then...

The consumers were outraged. US Government's FCC stepped in indicating that that kind of behavior was NOT allowed on Public access to the internet. I think we all see the value in eliminating this kind of partisan behavior. Verizon, a very large Telco, took the government to task saying their stockholders see value in them being allowed to flex their muscles that way, and recently convinced a US court to force out the Government's ruling for fair play for public access.

Now, the only option which is what a past US President requested US Congress to take up AND enter into law over a decade ago, which still has not been addressed by US Congress. Instead they ONLY focused on Spam and Telemarketing and NEVER addressed the "Fair Play" need.

This is the problem, where one company can behave in such a way as deny or control what you, as a user, would want to access and expect to see.

On one hand, you have ISPs wanting to control your access for their benefit while on the other, you want access to the internet to NOT be monitored for ISP individual benefit by using these tactics..

In the Australian case you site, imagine you use your 3G/4G ISP to get to the internet and you see one thing via your Yahoo account. Then, while at home you use your DSL and you see something totally different on the same URL. Which is accurate and which of your ISP decided to modify content to you? This is why Net Neutrality was "shoved" upon ALL US ISPs. There were barred from changing, redirecting, or denying any of your access to the internet.

Hope this helps in understanding why this technical item is of importance.

[gcmartin]

I have posted before appealing to this community to petition or write their politicians on this problem. Everyone ran away!

Here is another major Internet Provider telling you, YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING if you want fairness.
Look at this and if you are outraged, exercise some judgement on this.

This is a very important issue. It governs how and what you are allowed, not to mention who decides.

Remember, in US the politicians who make the laws have not done anything since they were asked to do something 2 decades ago. It took one US President to exercise department power to stop it while he appealed to Congress to do something, legally. 2 decades later, they continue to have this on the docket but refuse to do anything for the people by bringing it to the floor! Only you can impact this with your lawmakers (Congress if you don't know what a lawmaker is). No offense to anyone.

Here to help