Woody Leonhard's no-bull news, tips and help for Windows, Office and more… Please disable your ad blocker – our (polite!) ads help keep AskWoody going!
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • Today is Net Neutrality day

    Posted on July 12th, 2017 at 14:36 Kirsty Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    If you missed our recent blogpost on Net Neutrality, check it out:
    https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/net-neutrality-day-is-july-12th-2017-a-call-to-action/

    You could also check out:
    https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
    http://www.netneutrality.com/
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash
    https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutralityDay?src=hash

    If that helped, take a second to support AskWoody on Patreon

    Home Forums Today is Net Neutrality day

    This topic contains 28 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by  Sessh 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

    • Author
      Posts
    • #124586 Reply

      Kirsty
      AskWoody MVP

      If you missed our recent blogpost on Net Neutrality, check it out: https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/net-neutrality-day-is-july-12th-2017-a-call-to-action/[See the full post at: Today is Net Neutrality day]

      3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #124612 Reply

      AJNorth
      AskWoody Lounger

      As the recently-adopted motto of The Washington Post puts it, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.”

    • #124639 Reply

      Jan K.
      AskWoody Lounger

      I live under protective laws, where I’m guarenteed net neutrality and find it kinda ironic, that this is not the case in “the land of the free”…

       

      • #124642 Reply

        AJNorth
        AskWoody Lounger

        Ironic — and tragic.

        Sic transit gloria mundi – or at least that of the United States of America.

        • This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  AJNorth.
    • #124655 Reply

      BobbyB
      AskWoody Lounger

      Well that incipit legislation will be in enacted in the US, or is widely touted to be put in to law for the US according to the news. I am just wondering what this means for us in other Jurisdictions. The Dangerous “Thin end of the wedge” perhaps?
      I did see the petitions and would have signed but alas it would have been, well slighly, fraudulent if not “Ammunition” for the supporters of this nefarious piece of legislation.
      For all those that can, legitmately, fight the good fight, for sure if its passed its coming to a town like yours, wherever that may be, soon! 🙁

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  BobbyB.
    • #124692 Reply

      M. Patterson
      AskWoody Lounger

      Net Neutrality, as I understand it, is just a tragedy of the commons for cyberspace, wherein the ISPs all work together for the common good, but the bandwidth hogs get a lot more out of it at no extra cost to themselves (on the backs of the smaller networks) .  It’s an externalized cost.  Its biggest proponents were the video streamers, like Comcast, Netflix and Google, and it was during the reign of big-government politicians.  The internet grew up without the rule, and we were generally doing just fine without it, or at least were thought we were.

      Unintended consequences?  The lesser users curb development to avoid having to foot the bill for the hogs, as in the case where AT&T postponed fiber optic development over Net neutrality.  The real question is, what’s so neutral about crony capitalism?

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #124694 Reply

        Kirsty
        AskWoody MVP

        “Network neutrality – the idea that ISPs should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services – is a principle that must be upheld to protect the future of our open Internet,” a spokesperson from the EFF said in a statement sent to SC Media on Wednesday. “It’s a principle that’s faced many threats over the years, such as ISPs forging packets to tamper with certain kinds of traffic or slowing down or even outright blocking protocols or applications.”

        This really isn’t about bandwidth hogs…

        3 users thanked author for this post.
        • #124695 Reply

          AJNorth
          AskWoody Lounger

          Proud member of the EFF for over fifteen years.

          3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #124706 Reply

      anonymous

      I agree whole-heartedly with M Patterson.   This is all about the bandwidth hogs!!   The Internet should not be regulated as AT&T was for over 50 years.  That’s what the Net Neutrality proponents are advocating.

    • #124716 Reply

      BrianL
      AskWoody Lounger

      Call or contact all your representatives – ask that they vote NO on the upcoming internet bill!!!!

    • #124756 Reply

      anonymous

      I’ve already contacted my Representative and told him to vote YES on the upcoming internet bill!

    • #124757 Reply

      anonymous

      The Internet is fundamentally a sender-pays system.(What do you think would happen with spam and DDoS if it was a receiver-pay system?)

      Google/Netflix and gang want to shift their cost in the sender-pay system to recipients (aka ISPs).  The other ‘concerns’ and ‘outrages’ are rolled into the mix to confuse the issue.

      Don’t carry water for Google, and realize that you can’t change the structure of the international Internet; it has exactly the design that works in a world where the only actions are those that are voluntary and cooperative.

      Many of the fears that get rolled into this can already be handled by anti-trust and other laws.  It is telling that the Obama FCC imposed this action without any bill from Congress.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #124932 Reply

      johnf
      AskWoody Lounger

      Don’t make us laugh about using anti-trust against the ISP’s. They have millions to spend on Lawyers, as well as bribing Congressmen and local government agencies.

      Don’t want Net Neutrality? Then break up the ISP monopolies that don’t compete against each other (or who have spent millions to convince states to make local governments not create their own internet service). Make ISP’s only able to provide internet, not control content, and make them compete.

      Net Neutrality is only a compromise to allow the Monopolies to continue, while making them “play fair”. It does not mean that letting bandwith hogs (who are only a small percentage of users go free)…reasonable caps would take care of that. Don’t make promises (actually, lies…like unlimited internet that isn’t) with no intention of delivering. You won’t get companies like Comcast treating customers like dirt if they have to compete.

      • This reply was modified 9 months, 1 week ago by  johnf.
      1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #124941 Reply

        anonymous

        I can’t wait to see 5 ISPs compete for my business over here in TinyVillageTown, USA!

      • #124949 Reply

        anonymous

        You are letting the issues confuse.

        But first, the corruption of the government does not simply vanish because ‘net neutrality.’  The solution to that corruption is not lawless action by the executive branch.  But we also must not allow one group of interests convince us that their type of corruption is any better than the other, and harm the Internet in the process.  The Internet got where it is because government has not been able to meddle, and if you look around the world, the Internet is worst where government meddling is highest.

        Now, the main issue I address here is the concept that ISPs must provide delivery for everybody at the top-level of service.  This is false.  ISPs must make that delivery option available on a reasonable, and non-discriminatory price basis, but if that means Netflix better open it’s wallet wide, that is the correct outcome for an operator is generating 40% of peak traffic.

        ISPs must have the power to take blocking action against any class of traffic for network management (not anti-competitive) purposes.  There is no meaningful law on the international Internet, and that means if there is a flood of traffic coming from somewhere that is harming your network, you can block it.  The sender then has the problem of finding another delivery route (perhaps being forced to deliver it in a more dispersed manner) or paying that ISP to accommodate the traffic.  (Again, at non-discriminatory rates.)  No other arrangement can work.

        Don’t forget that anti-trust is not the only tool available; any of the 50 states can carry out anti-trust actions, and private companies can also attempt lawsuits (eg: Novell vs. Microsoft).  The key is that if somebody has their checkbook, then they get delivery, and no dirty dealing.  The idea that ISPs must deliver for nothing, that is the problem.  This is long established in the telecom (formerly known as long distance) world.

        Issues of regulation of other aspects of ISP/consumer behavior are issues to confuse what is really going on.  They are not ‘net neutrality.’  A more-fair implementation would actually impose regulation on web services: An ISP could force Netflix/Google, etc to deliver traffic to them in a particular way, and force those web services to provide certain level of service/rights to the people.  You don’t hear any of that, do you?

    • #151965 Reply

      anonymous

      ? says:

      Today December 15th, 2017 is un net neutrality day! more infinite wisdom from the top

      • #152025 Reply

        Elly
        AskWoody MVP

        The fight isn’t over… just the FCC acting on behalf of big business rather than the people they were appointed to represent. Not surprising because the chairman used to work for Verizon. The majority of the people (including the majority of Republicans… there is bipartisan support) want net neutrality.

        The next step is to get Congress to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to stop the FCC order.

        Funny… Microsoft unresponsive to customers… customers continue to work around them… FCC unresponsive to the people… worthwhile to stand up to big money bullies, where-ever they pop up…

        Not trying to rant about it… but pointing out what can be done by all us individuals, one by one, out here in Windows and Internet land…

        Check out https://www.battleforthenet.com/

        Win 7 Home, 64 bit, Group B

        2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #152039 Reply

          Sessh
          AskWoody Lounger

          It’s far from over. The FCC will have a multi state lawsuit filed against it due to the FCC likely being complicit in the identity theft of hundreds of thousands of Americans which were used to make fake comments in favor of the repeal back in May and the FCC has stonewalled any attempt at investigation since then. It’s not over yet and I imagine the backlash will only get worse if this decision isn’t reversed.

          It looks like it will be up to the courts in the end because it sure won’t be up to the majority of the American public. When it comes to what we want, no one cares and we have no say in anything which BTW was proven by a peer reviewed study three years ago.

          “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

          “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.”

          “Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”

          I’d say that study is pretty spot on. This FCC thing is just more proof of it. Hopefully with enough resistance, it will be overturned.

          2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #161941 Reply

      Kirsty
      AskWoody MVP

      From a brilliant tweet from Burger King, supporting Net Neutrality. Well worth 3 minutes to view, explaining Net Neutrality in Whopper-terms:

      #NetNeutrality

      2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #162423 Reply

        Elly
        AskWoody MVP

        I wish this video had been out when I was trying to explain to the kids why this was even an issue!

        Restoring net neutrality is important… but I’ve been frustrated trying to explain it. Now I’ll just refer to this video! It’s great!

        Thank you!

        Win 7 Home, 64 bit, Group B

        2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #162427 Reply

      Microfix
      AskWoody MVP

      Excellent link Kirsty, this needs to go viral on social media..

      | 2x Group A- W8.1 | 64bit | | Group W W7/ XP | offline | | Group A+ Linux Hybrid | 64bit |
        No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created IT - AE
    • #162442 Reply

      anonymous

      Here’s an article explaining why the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules was a GOOD thing.

      https://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the

      • #162460 Reply

        Elly
        AskWoody MVP

        From your link, ‘Why Net Neutrality Was Mistaken From the Beginning’…

        “net neutrality rules that gave the federal government the right to punish business practices under Title II regulations designed for the old state-enabled Bell telephone monopoly.”

        ISPs are monopolies when it comes to providing services in any specific area, so having them provide equal and fair access for information and services is not out of line. There are not a dozen or so companies competing for my business, and the business is not set up to allow for that kind of competition… so lobbying for rules as if it is that kind of competetive environment is disengenious of the ISPs. In order to encourage expansion, companies were given monopolistic areas to provide the guarantee that they will profit… they took that and ran with it, so why complain that they are being treated like monopolies… schools, businesses, and social connections have quickly become internet dependent… and corporate interests are exploitive rather than supportive of community interests. Net neutrality simply balances the power so that it isn’t net exploitation of individuals by corporations.

        The rest of the article linked to degenerates into how Pai (Chairman of the FCC) is being personally attacked… therefore the supporters of net neutrality shouldn’t have a voice? The FCC is there for the people, not corporate interests. People clearly experience corporate indifference and exploitation. Current rules do not provide a level playing field of any kind. What is amazing is that Chairman Pai and the FCC can be so deaf to the needs of the people they serve. This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue… net neutrality has support across both political parties.

        The one thing the video from Burger King missed, would be if the only food available is from Burger King (no other fast food, mini-mart, or supermarkets). It is clearly annoying to their customers to be throttled, but people could go somewhere else in this day and age… with the ISP Burger King equivalent there is no where else to turn to… we are stuck with starving to death, waiting, having more money extracted from our wallets, or settling for chicken when we really want the Whopper…

        Win 7 Home, 64 bit, Group B

        4 users thanked author for this post.
        • #162497 Reply

          Cascadian
          AskWoody Lounger

          And your well reasoned hypothetical ISPBurgerKing has been imbued with some power to enforce a ban on any other greasyspoon burger joint opening up around the corner. A real example of a total monopoly, and punishable under existing law. Anti-trust, RICO, extortion, etcetera.

          I agree that the current status that exists in the real world is not desirable. But the solution in any other industry is competition. Including the hypothetical restaurant business. In the real world they compete with the most basic unit, homecooking. In communications a ‘homecooked’ solution is not viable.

          But many of the existing communication companies started as regional communication providers. They either bought, or were bought by other providers. The consumer is an important part of a balanced marketplace. If the consumer surrenders the responsibility of balancing the market, you have government controlled business. Historically that is quickly followed by less savory activities.

          To long didn’t read; the video is entertaining. But it is an imperfect metaphor.

          1 user thanked author for this post.
          • #162891 Reply

            Sessh
            AskWoody Lounger

            Once again, a study (this time from Harvard) showing just why ISP’s are against net neutrality and scared to death of what community-run broadband represents. The only ones who are confused are the ones that think NN is a bad thing which, unfortunately, is too many people. Municipal broadband is the future and it does seem like states are stepping up to the challenge. The FCC seeks to block this from happening. Wonder why? I really hope people (finally) start to see that the government and all it’s agencies actively work against the interests of the public on a consistent basis. It’s been going on long enough already.

            THIS is exactly what they are scared to death of and it has begun. They are not going to win this one.

            • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Sessh.
            • This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Sessh.
            • #162898 Reply

              Cascadian
              AskWoody Lounger

              I know we have a disagreement to discuss. It is a disagreement over what is the correct method to use to arrive at a fair condition. And we have different concerns over the possible outcomes of different methods, as we view similar developments through history.

              But the language of ‘scared to death’ is inflammatory and unnecessary. In case of loss of life there is another, much older set of existing laws to deal with such an outcome.

              I applaud the efforts in Montana to attempt a small scale experiment to address this issue among that smaller population. This is what State’s Rights looks like. When it succeeds, we can consider how to scale up the design to the national level, looking for small variables that may not play well in different populations with different requirements. Or if it fails, scrapping the solution for a different design will not have impacted the larger group.

              I look forward to the results.

            • #162911 Reply

              Sessh
              AskWoody Lounger

              The language “scared to death” is neither inflammatory nor unnecessary. If the states start moving towards community broadband (which is cheaper and faster) country wide, the big ISP’s will lose revenue and not just a little bit. Of course it scares them to death. That’s why they go to such lengths to seek protectionist laws and sue the local communities trying to organize this kind of broadband service. “Scared to death” is appropriate for me and not the least bit inflammatory or unnecessary. To them, money is everything.

              1 user thanked author for this post.
            • #163031 Reply

              Cascadian
              AskWoody Lounger

              I yield the point to you. You are not interested in a moderate approach. Your patience has ended. Passion alone is driving you to an absolute position. There is value in passion, but it often results in pendulum like swings from one extreme to another.

              I remain interested in Montana’s trial. I have seen smaller efforts at the municipal level fail repeatedly from variations of the tragedy of the commons. Maybe those flaws can be addressed by a larger oversight body. Maybe the larger behemoth cannot be agile to changes in technology. It is worth exploring.

              I currently notice that I am using a federally designed and supported infrastructure, that I connect to using corporate entities, to remark on this item. It worked pretty good in 2006, still worked in 2016, and current silicon issues aside, still works pretty good today. I am jealous of the more advanced systems in place around the world. But I view bureaucratic regulations as the hazard that holds us back to the corporate interest of maximum profit for minimal outlay for improvement. I believe that loosing those shackles will make entrepreneurs more able to innovate. And show those lazy monsters how to really provide sevice.

            • #163051 Reply

              Sessh
              AskWoody Lounger

              Passion alone? Not really. I am interested in an approach that looks at the situation realistically and realistically, corporations love money and hate losing even a penny of it. Things like this may have failed in the past, but the climate is quite different now. Tennessee has had community broadband for quite awhile and it’s worked out great for them, but even there, the lobbyists are having some success in stifling it’s expansion even further.

              My arguments are not emotional. They are based on reality and the reality is community broadband is not only competition for these ISP giants, but it’s competition that is *better* than what they are offering in both price and performance. That represents huge hits to their profits and their monopolies. It’s not hard to see why they would be so aggressive in stamping it out as it is a serious threat to them. It will be an uphill battle, no doubt.

              1 user thanked author for this post.

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: Today is Net Neutrality day

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

    Your information: