Ready or not...

[Xairbusdriver]

FCC Will Return to ‘Light-Touch’ Regulation

QUOTE

...Pai voted against the net neutrality measure passed by the FCC in 2015. It survived a court challenge last year but opponents are vowing to reverse or rescind it.

[Paddy]

A little more detail here: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/new-fcc-chair...net-neutrality/

Appalling.

And if you're not concerned about this, you should be.

[gunug]

Can we get political yet?  

[kimmer]

If it's possible, without a political slant, could/would someone explain 'net neutrality' in nice, simple, terms so that this older gal is able to understand? If it can't be done without pointing fingers at one political party or the other, then please don't answer.

[Xairbusdriver]

To me, certainly no expert, it means there should be no barriers to access by end users. The internet service "providers" think they have the right to charge more for some content because they have invested in the network. The fact that the 'network' is nothing more than piggy-backing on government granted rights-of-way (at least in the US of A), is irrelevant. The fact that the end-users are the 'product' these content suppliers sell is also irrelevant. Regulators are getting ready to allow rescind limits on what can be done with the data the providers collect on us. They are preparing to rescind the requirement that we must be asked for our permission for our data to be sold in any way. Now that the Regulator is one who is against the consumers of the industry, what kind of protection do you think we will have from that industry?

Be prepared for even less competition, higher prices, fewer choices, less reliability and even less privacy. Regulations are bad because they prevent or at least slow down the creation of monopolies (profits).

Edited to comply with our "No politics" policy. BTW, I did vote, but not for either large, established, political party. I therefore reserve the right, priveledge, authority and displeasure of complaining about the results, Electorial or otherwise!

I had thought about moving to Canada (probably in the Spring) but after the interweb speeds reported in another thread, I may not wait that long!

[kimmer]

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 2 2017, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me, certainly no expert, it means there should be no barriers to access by end users. The internet service "providers" think they have the right to charge more for some content because they have invested in the network. The fact that the 'network' is nothing more than piggy-backing on government granted rights-of-way (at least in the US of A), is irrelevant. The fact that the end-users are the 'product' these content suppliers sell is also irrelevant.

Thanks for this explanation. Short, sweet and to the point with no extra comments. You could have left the rest of your comments off for my purposes.  

[kimmer]

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 2 2017, 02:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited to comply with our "No politics" policy. BTW, I did vote, but not for either large, established, political party. I therefore reserve the right, priveledge, authority and displeasure of complaining about the results, Electorial or otherwise!

Thanks for editing. Feel free to complain all you want about the elections—just not here.

[tacit]

QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 2 2017, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's possible, without a political slant, could/would someone explain 'net neutrality' in nice, simple, terms so that this older gal is able to understand? If it can't be done without pointing fingers at one political party or the other, then please don't answer.

"Net neutrality" is the idea that if you are a broadband provider, you have a responsibility to carry all the information flowing over your network the same way, regardless of what it is.

If Alice, your customer, buys a plan that allows her 200 GB of data a month, Alice should get 200 GB a month. It should not matter if Alice uses that data to Skype, watch movies on Netflix, surf Amazon pages, or send emails to her mom. She is paying for 200 GB a month and she should get 200 GB a month, and the ISP should not care what she is doing with that 200 GB (so long as it is legal).

What the broadband providers want is the ability to charge other people for data, and give preferential treatment for people who pay.

So for example, broadband providers want to be able to say "Alice, your plan buys you 200 GB a month at 5 Mbit/second...but not for Netflix. If you want Netflix, you have to pay another $10 a month. Otherwise, when we detect that you are using Netflix, we can slow down your data." Or, in an alternate revenue stream, the broadband provider can go to Skype and say "We will slow down the broadband for all of our customers who use Skype. If you do not want us to do that, pay us $100,000 a month and we will allow Skype traffic on our network at normal speed. Or, if you pay us $500,000 a month, we will give all our customers faster access to Skype."

So "net neutrality" literally means that broadband providers are entirely neutral about the data they carry; they treat it all the same and carry it at the same speed. The alternative is they can speed up or slow down certain kinds of data (like Netflix), certain Web sites (for example, making traffic from preferred sites that pay them faster, and slowing down traffic from Web site owners who do not pay), or charging extra to get access to some types of network services (like Skype).

[kimmer]

Wow. Thank you, tacit!

QUOTE(tacit @ Mar 2 2017, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 2 2017, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's possible, without a political slant, could/would someone explain 'net neutrality' in nice, simple, terms so that this older gal is able to understand? If it can't be done without pointing fingers at one political party or the other, then please don't answer.

"Net neutrality" is the idea that if you are a broadband provider, you have a responsibility to carry all the information flowing over your network the same way, regardless of what it is.

If Alice, your customer, buys a plan that allows her 200 GB of data a month, Alice should get 200 GB a month. It should not matter if Alice uses that data to Skype, watch movies on Netflix, surf Amazon pages, or send emails to her mom. She is paying for 200 GB a month and she should get 200 GB a month, and the ISP should not care what she is doing with that 200 GB (so long as it is legal).

What the broadband providers want is the ability to charge other people for data, and give preferential treatment for people who pay.

So for example, broadband providers want to be able to say "Alice, your plan buys you 200 GB a month at 5 Mbit/second...but not for Netflix. If you want Netflix, you have to pay another $10 a month. Otherwise, when we detect that you are using Netflix, we can slow down your data." Or, in an alternate revenue stream, the broadband provider can go to Skype and say "We will slow down the broadband for all of our customers who use Skype. If you do not want us to do that, pay us $100,000 a month and we will allow Skype traffic on our network at normal speed. Or, if you pay us $500,000 a month, we will give all our customers faster access to Skype."

So "net neutrality" literally means that broadband providers are entirely neutral about the data they carry; they treat it all the same and carry it at the same speed. The alternative is they can speed up or slow down certain kinds of data (like Netflix), certain Web sites (for example, making traffic from preferred sites that pay them faster, and slowing down traffic from Web site owners who do not pay), or charging extra to get access to some types of network services (like Skype).

[Paddy]

QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 3 2017, 04:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. Thank you, tacit!

QUOTE(tacit @ Mar 2 2017, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

QUOTE(kimmer @ Mar 2 2017, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's possible, without a political slant, could/would someone explain 'net neutrality' in nice, simple, terms so that this older gal is able to understand? If it can't be done without pointing fingers at one political party or the other, then please don't answer.

"Net neutrality" is the idea that if you are a broadband provider, you have a responsibility to carry all the information flowing over your network the same way, regardless of what it is.

If Alice, your customer, buys a plan that allows her 200 GB of data a month, Alice should get 200 GB a month. It should not matter if Alice uses that data to Skype, watch movies on Netflix, surf Amazon pages, or send emails to her mom. She is paying for 200 GB a month and she should get 200 GB a month, and the ISP should not care what she is doing with that 200 GB (so long as it is legal).

What the broadband providers want is the ability to charge other people for data, and give preferential treatment for people who pay.

So for example, broadband providers want to be able to say "Alice, your plan buys you 200 GB a month at 5 Mbit/second...but not for Netflix. If you want Netflix, you have to pay another $10 a month. Otherwise, when we detect that you are using Netflix, we can slow down your data." Or, in an alternate revenue stream, the broadband provider can go to Skype and say "We will slow down the broadband for all of our customers who use Skype. If you do not want us to do that, pay us $100,000 a month and we will allow Skype traffic on our network at normal speed. Or, if you pay us $500,000 a month, we will give all our customers faster access to Skype."

So "net neutrality" literally means that broadband providers are entirely neutral about the data they carry; they treat it all the same and carry it at the same speed. The alternative is they can speed up or slow down certain kinds of data (like Netflix), certain Web sites (for example, making traffic from preferred sites that pay them faster, and slowing down traffic from Web site owners who do not pay), or charging extra to get access to some types of network services (like Skype).

BTW - this is the same thing they did with P2P - and still likely do it in the US. In Canada, the ISPs got in trouble for it and have largely discontinued it. I was surprised to read that Rogers throttles Netflix (and Android??) in this otherwise fairly informative Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling

I suspect it needs updating - as Rogers got called out on it and according to various posts I've read elsewhere, the Netflix problem on Rogers is now moot. It should also be mentioned that Rogers had their own video-on-demand service competing with Netflix until they pulled the plug on it last November. It had been a constant money-loser and never as good as Netflix - not that Netflix here in Canada is anything to write home about.

Anyway - net neutrality is a crucial issue - one that I feel passionately about and I am appalled that the new head of the FCC is obviously yielding to pressure from the cable companies and business interests. That battle has been fought and largely won in Canada - but it's resurrection in the US is likely to have severe repercussions everywhere if they succeed. The implications are far-reaching and potentially dire  for the free exchange of information via the internet. Nobody wins - other than the cable companies.

[Xairbusdriver]

This didn't take long:

<ISPs, Marketers Rejoice as Senate Votes to Repeal Broadband Privacy Rules>

If you think Google collects a lot of info on you, wait until it's your ISP! Only hope now is to get the same folks who shot down repealing & replacing the AHC to shoot this down in Congress.

There are a couple of great quotes from Consumer Report and Electronic Frontier Foundation If the House doesn't pass this, the only good thing will be one less question about using your data, they will just do it without the question.

[kimmer]

QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 24 2017, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This didn't take long:
http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/is...ac79207572544c8

As I read this earlier this morning, I had this horrid thought about all the info Facebook has on folks. Just think, Zuckerberg will be able to buy another house selling all that info.  

[Xairbusdriver]

At least you volunteered to give it to him. If this bill passes Congress , the ISPs will the start collecting all the stuff that goes to FB, TWIT, even TS and everything else you do when accessing the web. The POTUS still has to sign it, but we all know how quick that will occur.

Thanks, so much, to the illustrious Senators for "protecting our privacy". I suspect they will be some of the first to make use of the flood of new data. Thanks, again, to the Supreme Court for designating corporations as having 'human rights'. I'll stop at these 'fake news' generalizations of two out of the three branches of our government before any names are mentioned.

[Dreambird]

Well... just one thing to say... I was browsing the net for something totally unrelated but you know how they like to shove ads or news stories under ones "non-trolling" nose... I stumbled across the delivery of your first budget and some of stuff in in  it... will say no more except...  

[Highmac]

QUOTE(Dreambird @ Mar 27 2017, 07:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... will say no more except...  

Thanks DB; I fear this thread may be veering in a dangerous (political) direction, so I'd appreciate you good people bearing that in mind and treading carefully :-)

In return I promise not to mention Brexit...