Why you were on the side of Net Neutrality

[grenefroggie]

Good points @pc747 you make here. There are people who REALLY do not want NN. I can think of many reasons why, but money has to do with most of it. Once you get past the reality that even the best intentioned companies in the US really don't care about you at the core, you can begin to understand why. You are a cash crop to them.

Also, if we have NN, then it is more difficult to censor you. If we don't have NN, we can censor you a whole lot easier.

I may regret using this reference, but I will because it drives home my point. ISIS has accounts on Twitter banned, on FB banned, on other social media banned. Most people would say this is in good taste. I would be inclined to agree. No matter how much we deny it, even if it is "for the greater good", it is censorship. NN isn't just about fast lanes and slow lanes. It is very much directly related to our freedom of speech as the human race.

 

[pc747]

Once you get past the reality that even the best intentioned companies in the US really don't care about you at the core, you can begin to understand why.

They do but they don't. Unless they are stupid and do not like money companies realize that when it is all said and done customers make them money. No customers no money. So they care about the customers as a collective group as long as it allows them to continue making money. Do they care about me or you as an individual, no. But if a large group of us had a complaint then they will listen especially if some of those same people start going to the rival. Now a business may either fix it or play shell games to make the customer feel like the problem is fixed but in the end they want the customer leaving feeling like they are satisfied. Verizon is known for their award winning customer service. They dont get that unless they take care of the customer to the point that the customers feel appreciated. But that does not mean that they are not going to do what ever it takes to make money. It is weird because when a business do what they do society treat them like the are the evil corporation but we forget this evil corporation also employs people allowing people to put food on their tables, clothes on their back, and support the economy.

Again I am not saying stop being mean to the "poor ole big business" as they can take care of themselves. I am also not saying forget the people. I think the best way to balance it all (at I think we all echoed this same sentiment) is to educate the consumers about what is going on and reminding them the power they have as a collective group. One person being angry at Comcast may not necessarily bring down the company but if that one recorded it and put it on soundcloud and more people realize they are not the only ones then Comcast now have a problem, because now people are being vocal. And angry customers who are vocal causes other customers to ask questions and take a second look.

 

[grenefroggie]

I guess I could have been more clear in my perspective, which you more or less lined out. But sadly I know this has been going on long before the internet. The internet just made it easier and cost effective.

My mom is in the catalog business. If you are old enough, you will remember that you either filled out the card and mailed it or you called the company to order it. On the card is a small box, barely noticeable. If you didn't check it, you explicitly gave said company to sell your name. Lots of money made in that. Pre internet SPAM.

 

[Powarun]

My general manager made a comment today that he really wanted net neutrality to fall through, I was overhearing my boss mention that for us to throttle speeds like the big guys it would be more of a hassle than its worth. This was coming from the back room of a small ISP that is trying to be good. We offer our customers four tiers, 5mb, 60mb, 80mb and 100mb and while we don't throttle, we get bottle necked and have so many other problems that throttling never really crossed our mind. Our biggest concern though is VOIP traffic, while we try to our best to prioritize VOIP calls in some areas that are saturated during peak times call qualities have seemed to suffer, and that kind of made me think that in some sense net neutrality is not the best idea in the world. Though at the same time a thought that an ad could disguise itself as a voip call to prioritize itself ahead of general web traffic to be loaded first irks me.

 

[grenefroggie]

There are provisions written within that allow for reasonable network management. Basically, if you use the rules for their intended purpose, you can actively manage and shape your traffic. The reality is that if we let every Tom, Dick and Harry do whatever they wanted with their internet connection without managing said traffic, being an ISP would suck.

You have the right to prioritize voice calls, especially if you are the voice provider. Voice communications over the internet is more and more popular. If you sell phone service, you need to ensure you can support it.

If you are referring to Skype, FaceTime, Hangouts then I would say let the packets flow. VTC services from third parties are likely different.

Also,if you are that congested all the time, then either the headend of wherever you get bandwidth from may need to be upgraded to accommodate more traffic.

Everyone runs their company different. I won't pretend that I have a clue about the one you work for. I know there were long periods of time before we could upgrade our headend. When we did so, we got bandwidth from two companies instead of one. Now we have four incoming connections on two different pieces of glass on two different networks. Ideally they would all have their own glass but I live in the country.

 

[Powarun]

Yeah we have some of the basics down with voice calls prioritized. Lets just say I should of made a more informative response. We have certain nodes that are getting up there with congestion and when the flipping equipment comes in we can finally upgrade our head end and that is whats a pain in the butt. That and always going over our budget since the previous guys in charge were tight wads and bought stuff that has been failing constantly.

 

[grenefroggie]

This photo, to me, speaks volumes about how me and my boss go about doing our work. There was a point in time when we were small. We depended on another one of the businesses owned by the owners to provide income for our service. Cutting some corners was necessary (not safety, but equipment cost) and we went with more cost effective solutions. We are self sufficient now, and have been for about 4 years.

If we want to do a project, and they can't pay for all the stuff we need at once, we tell them to hold off until we have enough money to do it.

We refuse to do network upgrades, or new build outs, without the proper equipment. For the most part they agree. It did not use to be the case. And I understand why they did it, but I put my name on the work I do, and I like it to be good work.

That being said, growing pains and tight wallets suck. We are in the process of getting fiber ran to a site. It has been a nightmare. Mostly on our new build out as we are using another company for transit. They are slow and fail in the communications department. Ironic for a company that supports major communications.

 

[SquireSCA]

I will admit I sided with Netflix all the way. Comcast customer service have been sucking and I already had in my mind that I wanted to cut the cord and my biggest fear was companies like Comcast slowing down their network making it hard to use companies like hulu, netflix, sling tv, or other companies that would make that possible. I was willing to overlook the entire law because for me it was important to make sure companies like netflix live. But this further proves that the market just needs to be allowed to compete unimpeded. Netflix seems like they will be able to just do fine in other countries playing by those rules so obviously they would have done fine here. Plus if history has told us over and over no matter how good the idea is do not sign unless the document (or bill) in its entirety will be of benefit. Just because the bold letters say you are about to get $1,000,000 does not mean that is the case as the small letter could say you would then owe back 2,000,000. So knowing now what we know now would you change things or leave them as they are.

The problem is that the market was not competing unimpeded. The reality is that it was already partially regulated, in that you could not have competing cable providers within the same zip code or covered area. If you are in "Comcast Country" and their service, pricing or customer service sucks, you are not allowed to go to TWC, Charter, etc...

You can go the DSL route or another TYPE of provider, but where there are hard lines, whoever got the contract for that geographic location is your only choice. And those companies know this... I would love to have cable, but Charter doesn't consider my sub-division large enough(72 homes) to be worth their time to run cable here. Even though I am literally 40 yards from homes that have Charter service, as does every single sub-division bordering mine. I am literally in a tiny pocket where they technically cover my zip code, but they refuse to run service here because they feel it isn't worth it.

So my only choice, is copper line DSL from AT&T.

That's not competition, IMHO...

 

[grenefroggie]

I wonder how many municipalities are going to start deploying fiber or other wired networks. The Franklin Plant Board in Frankfort, KY has their own cable service and it isn't the greatest. They were still running on DOCSIS One about three years ago. They are the only cable operator in Frankfort, and it isn't the greatest.

If all the cable companies in the US started competing for service, their whole business model would have to change to support an ecosystem that provides competition.

 

[dgstorm]

Here's the perfect example why the Internet needed to have enforced Net Neutrality through Title II:

Surprise Comcast won t let anyone watch HBO Go on PlayStation 4 The Verge

When you read that story, regardless of which side you are on, you will probably cringe and guffaw. No ISP should have the right to completely block you from using a separate service that you pay for on your Internet connection that you also pay for. Yes, it is their network, but you are paying them to access it. This example has nothing to do with bandwidth congestion, and is only a problem because Comcast can't extort more money from Sony.

The only time I could see this as okay, would be if 90% of customers had several different options for Internet Service, because then they could/would immediately dump Comcast and go to their competitor. In a perfect world where capitalism works properly, that would be fine, but when companies like Comcast and TWC agree to stay out of each other's area (or worse, try to merge into one giant monopoly), then this type of behavior makes Net Neutrality regulation necessary.

 

[pc747]

Here's the perfect example why the Internet needed to have enforced Net Neutrality through Title II:

Surprise Comcast won t let anyone watch HBO Go on PlayStation 4 The Verge

When you read that story, regardless of which side you are on, you will probably cringe and guffaw. No ISP should have the right to completely block you from using a separate service that you pay for on your Internet connection that you also pay for. Yes, it is their network, but you are paying them to access it. This example has nothing to do with bandwidth congestion, and is only a problem because Comcast can't extort more money from Sony.

The only time I could see this as okay, would be if 90% of customers had several different options for Internet Service, because then they could/would immediately dump Comcast and go to their competitor. In a perfect world where capitalism works properly, that would be fine, but when companies like Comcast and TWC agree to stay out of each other's area (or worse, try to merge into one giant monopoly), then this type of behavior makes Net Neutrality regulation necessary.

This the kind of stupidity that is going to hurt Comcast in the long run. I remember at one time I would request Comcast because they were a company that I felt took care of their customers. But now that they have become larger I feel like they lost that edge. And now that people are tired of them shoving their packages down their throat Comcast is trying to block customers from seeking other options instead of improving their services and plans to entice customers to stay.

 

[grenefroggie]

I read that and thought it might be good to post. Nice catch @dgstorm as I had read that and started scratching my head.

 

[silverfang77]

I support Net Neutrality because it preserves the Internet as it always has been: data agnostic. No kind of data is better than any other kind. ISPs are dumb pipes, not gatekeepers.

If paid prioritization (aka fast lanes) had been allowed, all that would have gone out the window, as in the case with Netflix being artificially throttled until they agreed to pay graft to regain full bandwidth to the "last mile" (aka the end users). Imagine if the entire Internet were like this and only big, rich sites could afford these fast lanes, smaller sites would be left in the dust, completely unreachable.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't think telcos have the right to decide which sites and services end users get access to and at what speed we get access to them.

 

[grenefroggie]

The concept of non prioritized traffic is very vague. Traffic gets prioritized all the time to ensure that the network operates optimally. With VoLTE coming, you better bet your bottom that voice traffic coming from major carriers is going to be prioritized. Granted the large carriers have their own backbone networks to make this rather easy.