Net Neutrality Explained

[ncted]

Back on topic: after some additional reading, I am enjoying the irony that, by abdicating the regulation of the Internet, the FCC opened the doors for states to regulate it within their borders, which will result in a patchwork of local laws and statutes that will make it difficult for telecommunications companies to do anything but observe NN. This kind of situation, BTW, is exactly why the FCC was created in the first place. I wonder how many execs at AT&T, Comcast, et. al. have realized exactly how they shot themselves in the foot by making their puppet regulators do this.

 

[TheKrell]

Back on topic: after some additional reading, I am enjoying the irony that, by abdicating the regulation of the Internet, the FCC opened the doors for states to regulate it within their borders, which will result in a patchwork of local laws and statutes that will make it difficult for telecommunications companies to do anything but observe NN. This kind of situation, BTW, is exactly why the FCC was created in the first place. I wonder how many execs at AT&T, Comcast, et. al. have realized exactly how they shot themselves in the foot by making their puppet regulators do this.

I'd like to like this post about 1000X!

 

[Juan]

The sold most of former GTE to frontier...kept a couple of places in Virginia and Pennsylvania...but the rest got dumped with west va and later they sold cali, florida and texas

Verizon is made up of the former GTE and Bell Atlantic companies. Hence, GTE is Verizon. Then Verizon sold some former GTE markets to Frontier. I guess technically it was GTE who wouldn't get off their butts to sell me a T1 in 1999, but it is the same difference as they are one and the same.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Juan]

Sorry..but thats unconstitutional...covered under interstate commerece

Back on topic: after some additional reading, I am enjoying the irony that, by abdicating the regulation of the Internet, the FCC opened the doors for states to regulate it within their borders, which will result in a patchwork of local laws and statutes that will make it difficult for telecommunications companies to do anything but observe NN. This kind of situation, BTW, is exactly why the FCC was created in the first place. I wonder how many execs at AT&T, Comcast, et. al. have realized exactly how they shot themselves in the foot by making their puppet regulators do this.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

Sorry..but thats unconstitutional...covered under interstate commerece

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

If you read the appeals court finding, you will see that the states are able to regulate communications within their borders that the FCC isn't otherwise responsible for. Since the FCC decided the Internet is an information service and not telecommunications, that puts it outside of the FCC's jurisdiction, so they cannot fight any state-wide NN laws. Just further proof that Pai is an idiot.

Edit: There would have to be a Federal law concerning NN to override any state or local NN laws that are established within their borders at this point.

 

[Justin Hill]

I just watched this video. Everything YouTube user ReviewTechUSA says is true about how if Net Neutrality were repealed, startups would have a much harder time becoming the next Amazon, eBay, Flickr, YouTube, FaceBook, Google, Yahoo!, etc. There are facts that support the well-being of the internet while Net Neutrality laws are being upheld.

NET NEUTRALITY IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE INTERNET'S FUTURE...

(P.S. Ajit Pai is such a jerk!)

 

[Juan]

States cant interstate commerece...just a supreme court ruling needed. .no new law...the problem is that most people communicate outside the states borders

If you read the appeals court finding, you will see that the states are able to regulate communications within their borders that the FCC isn't otherwise responsible for. Since the FCC decided the Internet is an information service and not telecommunications, that puts it outside of the FCC's jurisdiction, so they cannot fight any state-wide NN laws. Just further proof that Pai is an idiot.

Edit: There would have to be a Federal law concerning NN to override any state or local NN laws that are established within their borders at this point.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

States cant interstate commerece...just a supreme court ruling needed. .no new law...the problem is that most people communicate outside the states borders

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

LOL. Without the federal agency tasked with doing the regulation, and therefore no federal rule to follow, the states can do whatever they like. I think there is less than a 50% chance that SCOTUS will allow the FCC to keep the Internet as an Information Service and say the states cannot impose their own rules within their borders, especially with all the orignalists on the court now.

Once the traffic leaves a state with NN rules border, Big Red or whoever can prioritize the heck out of it until it crosses into the next state that has a different set of NN rules which they have to obey (per the court ruling). Who is going to want to manage that? Not to mention, most of the states with NN rules are heavily populated, and most of the traffic into/out of those states is going to have to observe whatever the local rules areas, so the majority of all the traffic will have to observe some kind of NN. Wasn't it just easier to continue to observe NN, like we all did for the first 30+ years of the Internet?

 

[Juan]

Nice try. .but they still can't regulate interstate commerece. . Thats why it took a gazillion years to collect sales tax on internet purchases. Amazon had to have a physical presence in the state... local net neutrality laws will soon go the same way as local control over cable tv rates. But you are probably way too young to remember that fiasco... or even better equal time regulations on tv and radio stations. . All those rules struck down by the supreme court

LOL. Without the federal agency tasked with doing the regulation, and therefore no federal rule to follow, the states can do whatever they like. I think there is less than a 50% chance that SCOTUS will allow the FCC to keep the Internet as an Information Service and say the states cannot impose their own rules within their borders, especially with all the orignalists on the court now.

Once the traffic leaves a state with NN rules border, Big Red or whoever can prioritize the heck out of it until it crosses into the next state that has a different set of NN rules which they have to obey (per the court ruling). Who is going to want to manage that? Not to mention, most of the states with NN rules are heavily populated, and most of the traffic into/out of those states is going to have to observe whatever the local rules areas, so the majority of all the traffic will have to observe some kind of NN. Wasn't it just easier to continue to observe NN, like we all did for the first 30+ years of the Internet?

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

Nice try. .but they still can't regulate interstate commerece. . Thats why it took a gazillion years to collect sales tax on internet purchases. Amazon had to have a physical presence in the state... local net neutrality laws will soon go the same way as local control over cable tv rates. But you are probably way too young to remember that fiasco... or even better equal time regulations on tv and radio stations. . All those rules struck down by the supreme court

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

The big difference between the Internet and the things you list is those are all things the FCC still regulates. You seem to be missing that point. Not to mention a large portion of what happens on the Internet isn't commerce. If the FCC wants to prevent the states from regulating the net, they need to actually have some rules intended to do that. An enumerated power unused is no power at all. The appeals court specifically referenced past SCOTUS rulings when they found that the FCC couldn't regulate something they had decided to no regulate.

Either way, I think we'll be waiting a while to find out as SCOTUS just started a new session, and this doesn't appear to be on the docket.

 

[ncted]

Interesting read:

Net neutrality is alive and well after this week’s crushing court defeat

Telecoms like Verizon were unwilling to claim the industry won anything this week after a multi-decade war of legal attrition. “I don’t want to characterize it as win or loss,” Rich Young, a policy spokesperson for Verizon, said. “This has been litigated for many, many years and I fully expect the trend to continue.”

Appeals may be filed to the district court or even the Supreme Court, but categorically stripping all 50 states of authority despite the absence of federal regulation seems dead on arrival. Parties still have the opportunity to challenge state laws on a case-by-case basis, argues USTelecom, the country’s telecom trade association, but it prefers Congress to act on a strong national framework.

 

[Juan]

Net neutrality was/ were regulations set by the FCC...like I said...let the supreme court rule...and they will eventually

The big difference between the Internet and the things you list is those are all things the FCC still regulates. You seem to be missing that point. Not to mention a large portion of what happens on the Internet isn't commerce. If the FCC wants to prevent the states from regulating the net, they need to actually have some rules intended to do that. An enumerated power unused is no power at all. The appeals court specifically referenced past SCOTUS rulings when they found that the FCC couldn't regulate something they had decided to no regulate.

Either way, I think we'll be waiting a while to find out as SCOTUS just started a new session, and this doesn't appear to be on the docket.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

Net neutrality was/ were regulations set by the FCC...like I said...let the supreme court rule...and they will eventually

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Assuming that SCOTUS agrees to hear it. They already ruled on it once, and they may be fine with the lower court's ruling. I've decided I am fine with it. The industry is getting what they deserve.

 

[Juan]

Hang on...I am NOT against you but money talks in this situation

Assuming that SCOTUS agrees to hear it. They already ruled on it once, and they may be fine with the lower court's ruling. I've decided I am fine with it. The industry is getting what they deserve.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[ncted]

Hang on...I am NOT against you but money talks in this situation

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Sure. I didn't necessarily think you wanted things one way or another. I took your posts as what you expect to happen based on your analysis of the situation. IMHO, the great thing about SCOTUS is they aren't for sale, unlike seemingly the rest of the government -- conservative, liberal, or otherwise. While I sometimes disagree with rulings, I try to understand the basis of the decisions and think about how they are likely to behave in upcoming cases. Given they refused to hear the NN case in November 2018, less than a year ago, makes me think there is a decent chance the same thing will happen this time around.

If I seem a jaded about how ISPs are getting what they deserve, it is because I had the misfortune to be involved in one of the earliest "traffic shaping" discussions with a rather large Telecom and an equipment provider back around 2000. I worked for the (now defunct) equipment provider, which also happens to have the initials NN. The Telecom wanted our software designers to bake in traffic management features that broke all the unwritten rules of TCP/IP. Eventually, my company said no, and the Telecom went with someone else (Juniper?) for their MAN routers instead. Knowing what they wanted in 2000, and likely what else they've added since, doesn't give me the best opinion of the motivations of that company in particular and the industry in general. QoS is one thing, but using DPI to make decisions in real time about the value of a packet is another, especially some of the options include mucking with the TCP Window Size in-flight and "dropping the packets on the floor." Anyway, that seemed/seems like pretty shady behavior, when all people want is a dumb pipe. NN eventually sold equipment with those features, but by then I was working in Big Pharma, so I wasn't involved.

My current ISP (AT&T Fiber) clearly has traffic rules in place to discourage out-of-home streaming, like Dish Anywhere and Fire TV Recast Streaming. I have instituted countermeasures, but it shouldn't be necessary. I could switch to Spectrum and it may work better, but I'd pay more, get less upload speed, and my path to my current employer's VPN endpoint would have considerably more latency.

 

[ncted]

AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal

Comcast cut back on network investment in 2019 despite repeated claims that killing net neutrality (and neutering the FCC in general) would have the exact opposite impact. With the company’s …

www.techdirt.com

 

[ncted]

If any one wants to comment on Net Neutrality, 17-108 (Restoring Internet Freedom), here is another chance: ECFS

 

[ncted]

Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars

In its 2005 Brand X decision, the courts changed US telecom oversight forever. You might recall that in the early aughts, former FCC boss Michael Powell (now the top lobbyist for the cable industry…

www.techdirt.com

 

[ncted]

Charter asks FCC to drop restrictions on data caps, network peering deals | Light Reading

Citing the surge of OTT video and the need to create network efficiencies, Charter asks the FCC to sunset its prohibition on data caps and paid peering deals five years after its Time Warner Cable deal closed.

www.lightreading.com

FYI: Charter really wants to go back on their "no data caps ever" promise

 

[arlo]

So how does all of this crap work with a VPN?
You say that an ISP can see that your Go Daddy site is getting more hits so they want to charge you more?
If it isn't hosted on their site or you happen to run a web server at home, how would all of that tie together as an "eff-you, pay me" deal?
But isn't a VPN only letting the ISP see that packets are blowing through their system out to and from wherever?
Maybe a bit of clarification is needed here.