Thursday, May 06, 2010

FCC pushes ahead with Net Neutrality

Big ups to the (Obama) FCC today for pushing thru the re-classification of America's broadband access under Title II. With this they can exert control over the broadband providers to make sure the net stays neutral.

The telecom's are upset with AT&T suggesting if the FCC wants this they should go ask Congress to pass a law regarding this. The same Congress who is bought and paid for with lobbying paid for by AT&T. Ugh.

18 comments:

  1. Net Neutrality is in a great position to destroy the internet as we know it. I totally get the whole 'Big Businesses Don't Play Fair', but there is just are much misintention in the FCC/FED behind this. People need to vote with their wallet - if you don't want an ISP that rate-limits you because you download porn or pirate movies and software for 12 hours straight and thread out 1000 connections which impairs other customers on your network segment, go get another ISP. But don't ruin the internet for everyone. Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Net Neutrality will put a lot of ISPs out of business. And these aren't the big ones that are the easy targets. There are wide-reaching affects that the Kumbaya-singing 'make everything open and free' crowd is completely ignoring. This will also be a foot-in for the FED to regulate the crap out of the internet, which will drive up prices. And for what? Internet prices have been declining steadily since the broadband boom. Net Neutrality is a scam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I want to make sure that:

    1) If I am sold 6mb down / 80KB up, that I can use all of that at any time or not anyway I see fit within the bounds of the law.

    and

    2) I want to make sure an ISP doesnt partner with Yahoo, for example, and in promoting Yahoo, they actual degrade the data from Yahoo's competitors.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. You are not sold 6 Mbps. You are leased a connection to the internet that allows you to pass UP TO 6 Mbps at any given time. There is nothing magical in a network that goes out and makes sure 6 Mbps is available to you 100% of the time. That is why on 9/11 the internet blew up. Over-subscription is what makes providing connectivity to the internet profitable. No ISP has the resources to guarantee 100% of its bandwidth to 100% of its subscribers 100% of the time. Most ISPs operate with an over subscription rate around 20:1, which means you can feed up to 20 1 Mbps customers with a 1 Mbps backbone.

    2. This is the foundation of the Net Neutrality scam. "We don't want ISPs to degrade connections to services other than their own so theirs work better". Where is the evidence that this is actually happening? They may give priority to their own services, and they limit you from crippling their network with out of control network-crippling Peer to Peer behavior. There are stats that indicate that on an average network 5% of the users eat up something like 90% of the resources at any given time. Ask any Net Admin, and they will tell you that the shaping policies and policing on a network is to keep this under control.

    I think the 'keep the internet equal' movement that is being prodded ahead by politicians is just a new spin on the old plan, which is to get the Federal Government involved in Regulating the Internet. When that happens, everyone loses.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3. The Government is the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is the same Govt that brought you the patriot act, which was passed under good intentions that you didn't believe. This is the exact same thing, in the opposite direction. If you really believe that this is about providing equality over the internet, I think you're being very naive.

    4. Richard Simmons is creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am sold a 6mb connection with bursting up to 10mbps. Now is that possible or what they mean? No. But that's not how they sell it or how it's stated on my bill. The typical user doesnt understand this.

    Charter cable blocks a lot of things and is notorious for deep packet inspections and traffic shaping that goes beyond what I would consider reasonable.

    Why do you feel Richard Simmons is creepy?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is that a rhetorical question?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Deep Packet Inspection is not by nature a bad thing. It's a technology that Network Administrator, myself included use to monitor their network and see what their traffic is comprised of. They don't use it to spy on you - they use it to make sure their network policies are maximizing efficiency, thereby delivering the best performance to the users balanced against the most efficient use of resources.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Gun's arent by nature a bad thing either.

    I think you missed the part where I said "beyond reasonable".

    ;)

    Is your "Is that a rhetorical question?" a rhetorical question?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh gosh I've gone crosseyed. ; )

    Where I take issue is your subjective judgment with regards to 'beyond reasonable'. The FCC should not be making blanket laws that cannot be satisfied, much less enforced. And trust me, the FCC has a long history of doing exactly that. The FCC is viewed by most ISPs as one of the major, if not the largest, THREATS to their existence. They roll out stipulations to ISPs that are totally impossible to implement, and ISPs are left to spend massive amounts of time and money explaining to them why it is impossible, and are never reimbursed for the lost time and money spent in doing so. It's really frustrating to watch, much less be involved in.

    I realize why the perception that is being stamped on net neutrality is so appealing at first glance. There are evil greedy people in the world. But they don't all work in the private sector, believe it or not. I understand why the idea of people 'voting with their wallets' isn't very palatable, because the average person doesn't know any better and will just take what they get. But should we perpetuate that ignorance with yet another safety net? At what point to we step back and start to understand the dangerous of trying to save ourselves from ourselves? Just as you can say people are too ignorant to know that ISPs are ripping them off, I'll tell you that many many more people are too ignorant to not blindly assume that the change of one presidential administration isn't going to inherently make politicans trustworthy again. Heck, that's how Obama got elected, by promising change. We bit that one hook line and sinker didn't we? Where is the change? Where is the transparency? Bullcrap.

    Nothing should be critiqued more aggressively than the United States Government. We are in the midst of an unbelievably perilous time, when we start to believe that the Federal Government should inherently be more trustworthy than Private Sector industries as a rule. Talk about opening Pandora's Box.

    We have got to get back to a minimalistic 'necessary evil' view with regards to the Federal Government. I don't honestly know what the solution is to make ISPs be honest, or to make any human being honest for that matter. I think we're in the process of waking up to that now, and I hope that continues.

    It's crazy to me how a change in Presidential Administrations causes so many people to just reboot their brains and assume we can blindly trust Politicians now. Scratch that, it's insane.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I could go into more specifics, but I'm not writing the rules for the FCC here.

    I'm sure it wont be the nightmare scenario you envision (and possibly build a bunker against) and I'm sure it wont be a land of flowers and teddy bears who give away free candy either.

    But I like when the government steps in and helps standardize and classify products and services so I can make a more informed choice about what I spend my money on.

    As far as Obama, you didnt bit on his hook. You bit on the other guy's hook. The lines on those hooks all go back to the same pole.

    And Richard Simmons is the fisherman.

    Now do me a favor and groove to this. Promise to comment on one thing on my blog without talking about the government or anyone in it and just smile like you did the first time you found a shape in a cloud.

    ReplyDelete
  13. George Bush presided over one of the most untrusted presidencies in American History. Nothing was off the table when it came to accusations and conspiracies, and had I said 'don't worry, everything will be fine, I'm sure it won't be as bad as you think', I would have been laughed out of any conversation. I remember debating this exact argument with you about the Patriot Act. Why the double standard now?

    We have GOT to stop assuming. Stop allowing the Federal Government to obsessing over and pushing the line for what they CAN do and refocus them on what they SHOULD do.

    We are poisoning ourselves, walking the most powerful nation in the world, the most successful, free, and prosperous collection of people in history - off a cliff. I think it is every bit as dramatic as it sounds, and has been happening for decades. No thanks. We need to stop hitting the friggin snooze button and remember who we are as a country. We don't need fundamental change. Fundamental change is what is destroying America.

    Ok Post something else and I promise I will not mention politics. LOL

    Carrot Top is much more creepy than Richard Simmons.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am by no means saying you should just now trust the government or do I condone that as a future position.

    I'm just saying, on this one thing, I think we're going to be okay.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This perfectly illustrates my point. We have shifted our mindset so radically that we now are putting ourselves in a position where we have to prove why the Federal Government should NOT be allowed to do something, rather than why they SHOULD. At a time when the FCC is saying we MUST allow them to police the internet to make it 'fair', people like me are saying 'Why is this necessary'? We are being run over by legislation that is being pushed hard against the will of most Americans. The burden of proof has always been on the Federal Government with regards to why they NEED additional power. The Federal Government is not to exceed powers established in the Constitution without justifying why they need them. The constitution GRANTS powers to the Federal Government, it doesn't LIMIT their power. That is an absolutely critical distinction. That is why our Constitution is so notably small - because the foundation of our Freedom is Government that is only as large as it absolutely has to be. We have go to stop blurring lines.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So this has nothing to do with whether it will be alright, it has to do with a near nonexistent demonstration for the necessity to further expand the powers of the Federal Government, which never stay where they started. Our Founders knew that very well and warned strongly against it in very very clear terms. We should have a much much better reason than 'It will be alright' to allow the Federal Government to amass more power. And stuff.

    ReplyDelete