The internet is not a big truck, it's a series of tubes!

[KurtDog]

Without much fanfare net neutrality took a big hit last month. Verizon sued the FCC for to end net neutrality and won. Essentially they now have the legal right to throttle your access to websites like netflix, amazon, and other content providers.

Why the Courts Ruled Against Net Neutrality - Popular Mechanics

The logic behind their lawsuit was that the content providers should bare some of the costs of bandwidth for access to their services. With this ruling internet service providers can now charge content providers on top of what they already charge end user. The isp's can now charge companies like amazon, google, netflix, and others for unrestricted access to the internet which you are already paying them for.

This is bad for several reasons. By charging the content providers, they are indirectly charging the end user. This will result in higher costs to the end user in everything you do online. This is purely a money grab by internet service providers.

The next logical step by the internet service providers will be tiered pricing to the end user. Essentially your internet bill will be structured the same way your cable bill is. They will offer tiered packages based on what websites you visit and want unrestricted access to.


Currently there is a bill to temporarily re-instate net nutrality. Please contact your representatives and show support for the Open Internet Preservation Act of 2014

 

[ssj4sadie]

I really don't see the big deal here. Do people think infrastructure is free? The internet isn't magical and actually requires a lot of shit to get you to Google servers.

Say everyone that drove on roadways went equal speed and used the same amount of gas each mile. Say the money necessary to maintain the roadways was collected by a tax on a gallon of gas. Does it not makes sense that the person that uses the roadway 100mi each day pay more than the person that only uses it 20mi a day?

 

[thomas91169]

Hurry the **** up google and get me my 100gbps optical connection for $40/mo. **** this ISP shit.

 

[PSUCOBRA96]

anything they can do to screw the end user. Think cell phones, they charge an insane amount for text messages compared to their actual cost. Text messages hitch rides on cell phone calls and they charge an insane amount for something that in reality is paid for by the call. They will nickle and dime the internet to death. Keep big business out because its been working great for years. Verizon will ruin it like they have cell phone and cable bills.

Edit: In the long run I want to see Google bury Verizon.

 

[wht93gted]

It's only a matter of time before Google Fiber kills everyone; I can dream, can't I?

 

[thomas91169]

anything they can do to screw the end user. Think cell phones, they charge an insane amount for text messages compared to their actual cost. Text messages hitch rides on cell phone calls and they charge an insane amount for something that in reality is paid for by the call. They will nickle and dime the internet to death. Keep big business out because its been working great for years. Verizon will ruin it like they have cell phone and cable bills.

Edit: In the long run I want to see Google bury Verizon.

In the long run I want to see Google splayed across the White House lawn.

Dont give two ****s if they give me ads based on my searches either!

 

[KurtDog]

I really don't see the big deal here. Do people think infrastructure is free? The internet isn't magical and actually requires a lot of shit to get you to Google servers.

Say everyone that drove on roadways went equal speed and used the same amount of gas each mile. Say the money necessary to maintain the roadways was collected by a tax on a gallon of gas. Does it not makes sense that the person that uses the roadway 100mi each day pay more than the person that only uses it 20mi a day?

If Verizon or AT&T was providing the bulk of the infrastructure you might have a case. They do not. They only provide you with an interface to the internet. And you are already paying for that infrastructure in monthly fees.

There is really no good analogy to what they are doing. It would be something like putting up toll booths on the freeway. They did not create the freeway, they only created the on ramps.

 

[ssj4sadie]

If Verizon or AT&T was providing the bulk of the infrastructure you might have a case. They do not. They only provide you with an interface to the internet. And you are already paying for that infrastructure in monthly fees.

There is really no good analogy to what they are doing. It would be something like putting up toll booths on the freeway. They did not create the freeway, they only created the on ramps.

Before I go any further, what is your experience in networking. Not your home linksys. But actual networking.

 

[focussvtracer]

Before I go any further, what is your experience in networking. Not your home linksys. But actual networking.

i love to hear a rebuttal. They are providers who just open the door to the internet.

 

[oldmodman]

Regarding internet access the USA sucks.

USA - 15 to 25 meg $45.00 per month.

Korea - 100 to 350 meg $8.00 per month and absolutely no streaming caps. EVER!

I have been promised fiber in my neighborhood for over twenty years now. Not going to happen as long as we will still pay through the nose for a measly 15 meg.

 

[RDLightning01]

[youtube_browser]0ilMx7k7mso[/youtube_browser]

 

[thomas91169]

Regarding internet access the USA sucks.

USA - 15 to 25 meg $45.00 per month.

Korea - 100 to 350 meg $8.00 per month and absolutely no streaming caps. EVER!

I have been promised fiber in my neighborhood for over twenty years now. Not going to happen as long as we will still pay through the nose for a measly 15 meg.

Yeah, though theres a big hindrance when it comes to our infrastructure:

South Korea land mass = 38,691 sq miles
USA land mass = 3.794 million sq miles

 

[KurtDog]

Before I go any further, what is your experience in networking. Not your home linksys. But actual networking.

I have a BS in computer science and have taken and passed the Cisco Certified Network Associates program.

 

[ssj4sadie]

Regarding internet access the USA sucks.

USA - 15 to 25 meg $45.00 per month.

Korea - 100 to 350 meg $8.00 per month and absolutely no streaming caps. EVER!

I have been promised fiber in my neighborhood for over twenty years now. Not going to happen as long as we will still pay through the nose for a measly 15 meg.

Not true. You think ISPs are raping us here you should see what contracted KT providers do to their clients.

Yeah, though theres a big hindrance when it comes to our infrastructure:

South Korea land mass = 38,691 sq miles
USA land mass = 3.794 million sq miles

You should see the mess they call their infrastructure. That shit would be shut down so quick here. I have personally supervised KT technicians run fiber strapped to electrical poles.

A huge reason for their success is the US military subsidizing their telecom costs through leasing lines. We depend on their infrastructure to project our communication power.

 

[ssj4sadie]

I have a BS in computer science and have taken and passed the Cisco Certified Network Associates program.

Cool, so we don't have to spend time wondering what the other may know. I have my AAS in computer technology and I am COMPTia Sec+ certified.

You are right, not one ISPs owns the majority of the infrastructure. You are wrong in thinking they are simply a "gateway to the internet" as the internet is just an amalgamation of networks. So how can you say that one provider cannot limit the amount or type of traffic a user gets as it must go through the provider's equipment?

 

[carrrnuttt]

The wrong words: how the FCC lost net neutrality and could kill the internet | The Verge

 

[carrrnuttt]

So how can you say that one provider cannot limit the amount or type of traffic a user gets as it must go through the provider's equipment?

In the same way a landline provider should not and cannot upgrade or degrade a user's line integrity based on a pricing structure.

Read the article I just linked to.

 

[ssj4sadie]

In the same way a landline provider should not and cannot upgrade or degrade a user's line integrity based on a pricing structure.

Read the article I just linked to.

Barring the obvious bias in that article. Have you ever worked in the telephony field? Specifically the switching portion of it? Your run of the mill PSTN line isn't comparable to use or administration to the internet line constantly streaming netflix.

 

[KurtDog]

Cool, so we don't have to spend time wondering what the other may know. I have my AAS in computer technology and I am COMPTia Sec+ certified.

You are right, not one ISPs owns the majority of the infrastructure. You are wrong in thinking they are simply a "gateway to the internet" as the internet is just an amalgamation of networks. So how can you say that one provider cannot limit the amount or type of traffic a user gets as it must go through the provider's equipment?

I'm not saying they can't limit the throughput through their servers. I'm saying it is bad if they do. It's bad for the end user, it's bad for the content providers. Essentially all they are doing is providing a gateway to the internet. Yes, they may own some of the communications lines and have to maintain them. They do not own the majority or even a large percentage. They already have a method for limiting throughput and a method to recoup costs through tiered internet plans. If you want faster speeds, you can pay for it.

They did not create Internet Protocol, they did not create other network protocols, they did not create the national infrastructure. Why do they get to reap all the profits and benefits at our cost?

 

[carrrnuttt]

Barring the obvious bias in that article. Have you ever worked in the telephony field? Specifically the switching portion of it? Your run of the mill PSTN line isn't comparable to use or administration to the internet line constantly streaming netflix.

Then raise the price of the utility (which is what it is). It happens all the time.

Netflix already pays to be connected. I am sure they pay a LOT. I pay to be connected. Why should Netflix or I get charged extra because I chose to connect to Netflix?

And what is your ****ing obsession with asking for people's backgrounds? Justify your ****ing position. Don't make it appear like you can only justify your stance to people whom you think know less than you.