Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: FCC "net neutrality" rules overturned

  1. #41
    Needs your put
    Just Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JustPut.com
    Posts
    88,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    How Netflix Poisoned The Net Neutrality Debate

    Earlier this month, Frost & Sullivan’s Dan Rayburn, a leading media industry analyst, reported damning evidence that Hastings’s claims of ISPs throttling were untrue all along, based on a fundamental misidentification of the cause of measurable traffic congestion being experienced at the time across the Internet.

    There was intentional throttling going on, Rayburn reports. But it was not being done, as Netflix claimed, by Comcast or other large ISPs, intentionally or otherwise.

    The congestion, rather, resulted from a calculated choice made by Cogent, Netflix’s own Internet transit provider. Cogent, it turns out, had implemented a practice of prioritizing the traffic of its retail customers over that of its wholesale customers, including Netflix, during times of heavy network usage that strained Cogent’s capacity to deliver the traffic being pulled by end-users.
    The slowdown had nothing to do with the lack of enforceable net neutrality regulations. And it said nothing about the potential danger of so-called “paid prioritization” arrangements that have been the rallying cry in this round of the ten year old net neutrality debate.

    Quite the opposite. It proved that network management, absent intervention from federal and state regulators, rapidly resolved its own problems through private agreements and new technologies. If anything, it demonstrated the value of an FCC rule, upheld by the court, that required transparency for such practices—rules that have previously not extended to transit providers such as Cogent.
    In filings with the FCC, Netflix argued the FCC should assert authority it still maintains over the declining switched telephone network, authority granted nearly a century ago for what was then a legal monopoly granted to the former Bell System.

    In a legally-dubious process that advocates euphemistically refer to as “reclassification,” the Internet would be turned into a public utility, granting the FCC and state regulators vast powers to oversee any and all aspects of its deployment and operation. (In his plan, Obama explicitly calls for the public utility approach, without addressing any of the downsides that are well known based on the failings of existing utilities and their regulators.)
    As Rayburn noted in May, nearly every major content provider, including Apple, Amazon, Facebook, eBay, and Google had long since established such deals with nearly every large ISP and backbone provider. Not because they were forced to, but because such deals made good technical and business sense.
    At a June event sponsored by the Aspen Institute in Washington, as reported by fellow Forbes contributor Hal Singer, a Netflix representative admitted that the price the company was paying Comcast to connect directly to its network was too trivial to report, or to serve as a source of competitive marketing.
    Netflix quality improved after establishing direct interconnection with Comcast, in other words, just as the chart shows. But only because Cogent had been disfavoring wholesale traffic en route to the ISP. Once Netflix took Cogent out of the loop, the problem went away. Immediately.
    Whether by design or accident, most mainstream reporters and consumers commenting in the FCC docket erroneously point to what has now been revealed as Cogent’s intentional degradation of Netflix and other wholesale traffic as proof that ISPs have both the power and intention to force content providers to pay for prioritization, or what is sometimes inaccurately characterized as Internet “fast lanes.”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydo.../#506fec9f1c4d

    This morning, Cogent admitted that in February and March of this year the company put in place a procedure that favored traffic on their network, putting a QoS structure in place, based on the type of content being delivered. Without telling anyone, Cogent created at least two priority levels (a ‘fast lane’ and ‘slow lane’), and possibly more, and implemented them at scale in February of this year. What Cogent did is considered a form of network management and was done without them disclosing it, even though it was the direct cause of many of the earlier published congestion charts and all the current debates. [See: Cogent’s Favoring Of Packets Disregards FCC Rules]
    https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...slow-lane.html
    A mile of road takes you a mile. A mile of runway takes you anywhere.

    I have landed an airplane at: 3CK, KPWK, KUGN, KDKB, KENW, KRFD, KDPA, 06C, KJVL, KMSN, VPZ, KLAF, 10C

  2. #42
    Needs your put
    Just Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JustPut.com
    Posts
    88,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Net Neutrality, Reclassification and Investment: A Further Analysis

    Using a broad measure of telecommunications
    investment, prior analysis demonstrates that
    since 2010 investment in telecommunications is
    about $150 to $200 billion lower than it would
    have been absent reclassification of broadband as
    a Title II telecommunications service. In this
    PERSPECTIVE, I extend my earlier analysis by
    applying the same methodology to a different
    control group and narrower definition of
    investment. No meaningful changes to the
    estimated investment effects are found—the
    decline in investment from reclassification
    remains large and statistically different from
    zero.
    http://www.phoenix-center.org/perspe...17-03Final.pdf
    A mile of road takes you a mile. A mile of runway takes you anywhere.

    I have landed an airplane at: 3CK, KPWK, KUGN, KDKB, KENW, KRFD, KDPA, 06C, KJVL, KMSN, VPZ, KLAF, 10C

  3. #43
    Needs your put
    Just Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JustPut.com
    Posts
    88,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Why deregulating internet service makes sense

    We think consumers will benefit because increased competition is a greater spur to technological innovation than government fiat. In other words, you’re not still using an avocado-colored 1970s telephone, right?
    First, deregulation will not usher in a digital chaos. The FCC and Federal Trade Commission will still have oversight responsibilities. Second, net neutrality is a new concept promulgated by the Obama administration. The internet operated without these restrictions previously without adverse effects. If deregulation doesn’t work, it can be modified or reversed. Congress also can weigh in.
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...122-story.html
    A mile of road takes you a mile. A mile of runway takes you anywhere.

    I have landed an airplane at: 3CK, KPWK, KUGN, KDKB, KENW, KRFD, KDPA, 06C, KJVL, KMSN, VPZ, KLAF, 10C

  4. #44
    Movie Guru Great Put
    Beemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Chicago Illinois, where we call Wisconsin, our state park : D
    Posts
    8,369

    ‘Father Of The Internet’ Skewers FCC: ‘You Don’t Understand How The Internet Works’

    01000010 01100001 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01100111 01110010 01100001 01101000 01101110 01100001 00100000 01110111 01100101 01100101 01110000 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101110 01111001 00100000 01100010 01101111 01101110 01100111

  5. #45
    Al Gore?

    Pete (guesses)

  6. #46
    Needs your put
    Just Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JustPut.com
    Posts
    88,303
    Blog Entries
    2
    I don't think he understands how the Open Internet Order rule works. What was the common theme with the Obama Administration? Waivers and political favor. The Open Internet Order, Orwellianly called "net neutrality", gives the government the ability to forbear at whim. It's an open door for corruption whereby politically connected companies, which just so happen to be the big corporations, like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc. who have spent big bucks on this, will gain favorable treatment over everyone else. Those same edge provider companies routinely censor content.

    As I posted here, the Open Internet Order really has little to do with what people believe "net neutrality" means.

    And as I posted here, the big edge providers aren't taking a stand for anything other than pushing for government force to be employed in improving their own business.

    While the net neutrality rule applies to those ISPs that
    hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits to
    internet content, the converse is also true: the rule does not
    apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something
    other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway—i.e., an ISP
    making sufficiently clear to potential customers that it
    provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of
    “editorial intervention.”
    UNITED STATES TELECOM ASSOCIATION,
    PETITIONER
    v.
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AND UNITED
    STATES OF AMERICA,
    RESPONDENTS
    INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
    ALLIANCE, ET AL.,


    In other words, an ISP can filter content as long as they say they are filtering content.

    The Open Internet Rule was nothing more than a political move.

    The 2014 White House pressure didn’t occur in a vacuum. It occurred immediately after Democratic losses in the November 2014 midterms. As Public Knowledge president Gene Kimmelman tells it, President Obama needed to give progressives “a clean victory for us to show that we are standing up for our principles.” The slapdash legal finessing that followed was presaged by President Obama’s November 2014 national address urging Title II classification of the Internet, which cites the wrong communications law on the Obama White House website to this day.
    https://techliberation.com/2017/07/1...et-neutrality/

    Getting rid of the Open Internet Rule will bring us back to the way the internet was before 2015. It moves the internet back to being open.
    Last edited by Just Jon; 12-12-2017 at 10:01 AM.
    A mile of road takes you a mile. A mile of runway takes you anywhere.

    I have landed an airplane at: 3CK, KPWK, KUGN, KDKB, KENW, KRFD, KDPA, 06C, KJVL, KMSN, VPZ, KLAF, 10C

  7. #47
    Let's make the internet great again!

    Pete (wears Red Hat linux)

  8. #48
    Needs your put
    Just Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    JustPut.com
    Posts
    88,303
    Blog Entries
    2
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted on a party line vote today to rescind the net neutrality rules passed by the agency under President Obama. Two Republican-appointed commissioners joined agency Chairman Ajit Pai in a 3-2 vote to rescind the order and return to a standard that closely resembles the way the internet has been regulated for most of its existence. The vote was briefly delayed after security cleared the hearing room in the middle of Pai's remarks in order to conduct a search.
    The Obama-era regulations came with numerous exceptions and exemptions, and called for the FCC to make many decisions about how ISPs could manage network traffic on a case-by-case basis rather than on clear rules. Supporters argued that the goal was to avoid undesirable rule-driven outcomes, but the effect was to empower federal regulators to decide which internet management innovations would be allowed and which would not.
    The shift in strategy is telling: Netflix favored net neutrality rules as a way to preserve a business advantage. As it has grown, it no longer needs that advantage. The debate over net neutrality was always, in part, a tug-of-war over regulatory advantage between tech industry giants. Today, the FCC took steps to stay out of the fight — and remain a neutral regulator over the net.
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/14/th...al-obama-era-n
    A mile of road takes you a mile. A mile of runway takes you anywhere.

    I have landed an airplane at: 3CK, KPWK, KUGN, KDKB, KENW, KRFD, KDPA, 06C, KJVL, KMSN, VPZ, KLAF, 10C

  9. #49
    I was listening to the Bill Press show this morning. They were bitching about net neutrality being lifted (Bill and a guest). They also had no idea what they were talking about.

    Bill Press's comment was the best one, "The cell phone companies do that to you now...they throttle you if you use too much data."

    Nice try Bill, but that's got nothing to do with net neutrality, which is content based, not usage based.

    His guest tried to pass of the notion that the cable companies are going to start charging us for higher speeds.

    Once again...not a net neutrality issue.

    It became blatantly obvious that the only thing those two knew about net neutrality is that they were for it, even though they had no idea what it was.

    Pete (thinks that's true of a lot of people, who are choosing a party line without truly understanding the issue)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •