Net Neutrality
- Thread starter Gerhardt
- Start date
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
Thing that I dont like about it is the ability F**k with Freedom of the Press. Yeah, internet ain't the Press. But it is more and more how the News is delivered. Both 'reporting' news and 'opinion' news. It is a major source of campaigning, elections and the selection of people who will be deciding how it can be used. Like it or not it is part of the 'fabric' of our lives. It is no longer just an entertaining novelty. Above have been comments such as 'the G'vmt has had their heads stuck up big money's azz for so long they can't recognize the smell of s**t anymore.' The pic with the Congressman wearing NASCAR advertising suits so you can see who owns them is priceless. Yeah, there are issues that need to be addressed concerning the nuts and bolts of fair competition. But to unravel the very foundation of the concepts that have prevented this Great Country from falling back into the era of 'Robber Barons' scares me.
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 6,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
If the Supreme Court says Sherman is Constitutional, it's Constitutional, and the SC has done so many times.
Since Internet communications cross state lines whether we want them to or not, legislation and regulations concerning it would seem to fall within the explicit authority granted in the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Which Press company even gives a crap about their “freedom” anymore other than to cater to their target demographic. It’s not like this is a serious problem at at ISP level. Seen any ISPs blocking the garbage out of either Fox News or Huffington Post? LOL. What a silly thing to worry about. The ISP makes MONEY off of transporting the bits these cultists put out. There is no real Fourth Estate anymore. People want their customized partisan news and really don’t give a crap about finding a neutral news provider anymore. Not that there is one. Partisan cultism and “news fairness” hasn’t been involved in anything related to ISP transport ever as far as I can tell. Got any examples?
Now private entities owning all the content... Facebook, etc... and censoring people on their websites, that’s a problem. But they’re not the ISP. Heck even PoA censors content. The websites themselves get to censor all day long if they like.
Important point of order. Something being “Constitutional” and something being “required by the Constitution” are two very different things. One is easily changeable in any election cycle. The other is a lot harder to change and therefore intrinsically much more important.
Sherman can be gone in a single SCOTUS reversal or Congressional bill, however the winds of public opinion blow or a Court member decides to legislate from the bench. Not hard at all. Multiple SCOTUS decisions in the past about it are essentially meaningless if they decided to flip their opinion.
I believe a now deceased Justice with a better understanding of the legal system and vocabulary than I will ever have, described such SCOTUS behavior as “jiggery-pokery”. LOL.
Getting rid of the Constitutional requirement for national defense would require a significantly harder path, legally.
Dumping Sherman would be a normal Congressional bill and standard politicians voting whatever they liked. They might have consequences to their longevity as politicians, but none of us could stop them.
Commerce clause is very controversial but for the moment popular. See “jiggery-pokery” above for how it could be gutted instantly by SCOTUS anytime they please.
We’re lucky to have relatively moral oligarchs here. Hahah. Note I said relatively. Taking half of everyone’s life’s work at gunpoint is theft, but that’s so ingrained as normal, nobody notices it. Pays for nice dinner parties in DC I suppose. Cool if you’re invited.
Then if it's to be regulated, shouldn't that fall under the Dept of Commerce rather than the FCC?
paflyer
Final Approach
They left themselves a loophole.
paflyer
Final Approach
Sniff...
That's for Congress to decide.
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 6,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
Ms. Justice Ginsberg gave your deceased justice more than a run for his money in legal reasoning, and she would disagree. I think gutting well-settled law is a bit more difficult than with the snap of the fingers you describe above, literalist interpretations notwithstanding. Imagine what would happen if the SC overturned Brown. Not likely.
Howver, I do agree with you on legistative action, look what they did to Smoot, and that cost them nothing, because much of the voting public don't understand the issues.
Howver, I do agree with you on legistative action, look what they did to Smoot, and that cost them nothing, because much of the voting public don't understand the issues.
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 6,008
- Display Name
Display name:
Quit with the negative waves, man.
I believe part of this deal is regulating under the FTC, is it not?
paflyer
Final Approach
Every once in a while they make an example of someone who resists by sticking them in a fed gulag for a couple decades.
There is no greater crime than withholding from Uncle Whiskers what is to be rendered unto him.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Aww isn’t that nice. They all disagree. Who cares?
Your assertion of “unlikely” doesn’t change the fact that it really is that easy.
It’s unlikely I’ll be run over by a Mack Truck today, but that doesn’t change the fact that I can be.
Politician and lawyer worship is popular these days. They like that so they tend toward not scaring the sheep with crazy moves, but they have the authority and the right to make crazy moves anytime they like.
It’s a Republic with Oligarchial leanings, it’s not a true Democracy. People forget that or even buy the silliness about it which is often pushed via kiddie books in schools.
If you ever want a serious belly laugh, read what we teach kids about how Bills are written. Pure propaganda, and nothing even close to how it really works. Good for comedy with a stiff drink on a boring weeknight, though.
The voting public always thinks it’s smarter than experts in any field. That’s why politicians need the voting public. Useful idiots. Just like this Net Neutrality garbage. No network engineer thinks anything this silly debate has been about is regularly done by any network.
Even the poster child case, Netflix being throttled, when you dig into it you find out Netflix refused to purchase network needed to handle their traffic while they were desperately trying to avoid bankruptcy.
They had access to easily cover getting their massive bandwidth content to their customers anytime they wanted to pay for it. They couldn’t afford it at their tiny prices. Complaining that there wasn’t enough transit bandwidth so certain carriers were being “evil” to them was mostly just fluff. Their datacenter pipes they paid for were full.
But it’s way easier to convince people paying $9 for (in theory) streaming video 24/7 if they like, that it’s a big bad evil company keeping the little guy down, than to pay for the bandwidth they actually needed to offer such a hellaciously oversubscribed product.
As a networking guy and former telecom guy I just laugh at Netflix. I knew their prices weren’t high enough for what they do, certainly back around the time they started all their public whining to cover their impending bankruptcy and get free advertising by being in “the news”. Brilliant really.
They saved themselves by whining to people who have zero clue about networks and can’t even figure out how to boot their computers most of the time, that the big bad carrier was out to take away their $9 movies. LOL.
OMG! BBQ! NOOOOOOO. Must. Consume. Crappy. Hollywood. Content. Daily. Holy crap! That big evil carrier is trying to kill Netflix and make me watch... NBC!!!!!
(Content from Hollywood getting blocked by ISPs might actually help this dumbass society, honestly. They might go outside and do things and learn something. I’m seriously not sure I care if ISPs block one pile of crap and drive people to s different pile of crap, really. Are people really worried about this? OH NO. I can’t watch THAT retarded Sit-Com, I’ll have to watch this other insanely stupid one!)
Hahahaha. I’m think I’m joking. Maybe. But many not. I haven’t decided yet. Cutting off half of the content produced by entertainment companies probably wouldn’t actually be harmful to the overall society. Cutting off partisan news sources? Same.
Any ISP who actually tries it on a mass scale is going to have their economic butts handed to them anyway. The idiots want their HuffPo and Fox.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
I went and watched the latest installment of the Star Wars series. I give it a B+
While I was gone @denverpilot schooled @mryan75 on "in the constitution" vs constitutional and @Palmpilot asked for clarification as to whether entitlements are good or bad.
Well, stupid things can be constitutional and entitlements can be bad. Many are both.
While I was gone @denverpilot schooled @mryan75 on "in the constitution" vs constitutional and @Palmpilot asked for clarification as to whether entitlements are good or bad.
Well, stupid things can be constitutional and entitlements can be bad. Many are both.
Last edited:
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
I don't understand what you're trying to say, nor how it relates to the question I was answering.
You're mistaken.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
@Palmpilot is correct. I said he questioned the goodness or badness of entitlements. He did not. Sorry.
What does your first quote have to do with it?
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
It was the context of the conversation on entitlements that I mis-stated your opinion of.
paflyer
Final Approach
They also ruled that a federal mandate to purchase a product from a third party for-profit corporation was Constitutional.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
This thread is better suited to pilotspin.com.
Actually it's both, because the jurisdiction of federal agencies is set by statute law, which of course requires both the President and Congress to create.
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
Now you're just playing with us. FCC Regulations are not statutes, and NN has never been legislated. Nor should it be.
Unless you're saying the statutory realm of the FCC includes this net nonesense. Which may be correct from an oversight perspective.
Last edited:
It appears that you've lost track of what it was that I was talking about, so let's review:
So to summarize, I am saying that within the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a federal agency is determined by statute. I'm not saying that FCC regulations are statutes, I'm saying that statutes determine what subjects a federal agency is allowed to adopt regulations on.
I'm not saying that, because I don't know. In order to form an opinion on that, I would have to read the statutes that define the FCC's jurisdiction, and any relevant court interpretations of those statutes, and I don't have the time or expertise to do so.
My first post in the review above was only intended to say that the Constitution's interstate commerce clause appears to me to give the federal government the power to legislate about and regulate the Internet. It was not intended to specify which federal agency has been given the applicable regulatory authority.
Last edited:
Vince R
Pre-takeoff checklist
You know, if you’re worried about your service provider slowing down your Netflix or suppressing your news, there’s a simple solution - just set yourself up with a VPN. That makes it impossible for your service provider to know where your traffic is heading, and if they can’t tell, they really have no way to muck with your access.
paflyer
Final Approach
Interesting
denverpilot
Tied Down
Haha. See “jiggery-pokery”. Already covered.
Not really. The majority of VPN providers hide off-shore (if you look at their IP addresses) because providing it here means the carrier knows EXACTLY who they are and what they do, when they buy their bandwidth from them. They also have to fill out IP justification documentation for all the IPs they burn.
That’s said, the backbone providers don’t care. They get paid by you AND the VPN provider, so as long as people think VPNs are some magical way to hide from a backbone provider (they’re not... they know...) they get double the money for you’re lack of understanding that they can see the endpoints of everything. They can also just block the VPN provider’s foreign address space if they’re an overseas entity.
Case in point, Net Neutrality law here becomes absolutely meaningless once you leave the US. It is an international network after all. But you’ll be paying Global Crossing (full disclosure, I was a GC employee once after a merger) 80% of the time of you cross an ocean.
And oh yeah. GC wanted their HQ in the Bahamas for tax reasons. They literally have a broom closet there. Have photos. But the important point here is that makes the a “foreign” carrier in the eyes of the national “security” folks.
So they fall under rules the domestic carriers don’t — about reporting traffic back to Uncle Sam. Uncle said they had to provide fiber taps for Uncle to use pretty much whenever they felt like it, or Uncle would squeeze GC saying they were a “foreign carrier” harboring “terrorists”.
Not kidding. Real stuff. Cost GC a fortune internally to engineer it all for Uncle’s convenience to keep themselves off of the terrorist helper lists, after I was gone.
So Uncle has some wonderful visibility into GC undersea fiber traffic that they don’t have legally in a few other undersea fiber cases. Although most folks inside the biz figure all the carriers are playing along with the evidence that came out of AT&T in the 90s by a security and privacy whistleblower. But GCs is built in, thanks to GC wanting to avoid US taxes.
Ironic, isn’t it? The one thing the Net is absolutely neutral about is allowing Uncle to copy packets and look at pretty much whatever they want. Neutral may be a bad word, but “compliant” in a way that is not in any carrier’s customer’s best interests, anyway.
Tapitty, tap, tap! All automated. No carrier has time to have people really looking at the court orders nor wants to pay engineers to turn on data taps. They’re just installed permanently with some weak procedures to turn on particular flows. It’s too much data to cram it all through Uncle’s connections but the carriers like that anyway. Uncle always buys more. They pay for those circuits too. Big time.
This exactly. It is another example of how business in this country socializes the expenses while capitalizing the benefits.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
PaulS
Touchdown! Greaser!
If that were shown it would destroy his narrative.
This is a mind bogglingly bad analogy, but it is one many people seem to believe, so I'll try to explain why.
The biggest flaw here is that while there are visual similarities, the internet functions absolutely nothing like a highway.
On a highway, the speed you can go is generally limited by the power of your car, your ability as a driver, and the skill and the number of other drivers.
On the internet, the "speed" (bandwidth) at which your data moves is limited only by the hardware that is processing it. Congestion can be a concern, but the number of redundant paths available on the internet, and the intelligent self-correcting nature of the internet, means that the only real choke points exist at the terminal switch that serves your neighborhood, and the data center hosting the server you are trying to reach.
Congestion at the consumer end of the connection is addressed by your service contract, and your ISP is responsible for upgrading the hardware there so that as they add customers, the switch does not become overloaded. This is something that is really easy to do: the network card in your computer and modem can generally process a maximum of one Gigabit per second, while internet switching and routing hardware can process hundreds of Gigabits, or even a few Terrabits. So one switch at your ISP can deliver maximum rate performance to hundreds or even thousands of customers.
The story is the same on the server end, but servers usually have several network interfaces so that they can serve more clients. This means that the ratio of servers to routers must be lower, which is why server hosting connections cost more than consumer connections.
It you've been following this, you should see right about now that there is no room in the way this works for "fast lanes". You pay to access the internet at X rate, and content providers pay to have Y rate. The only reason you should ever see a speed slower than X on a website is if that website is processing so many clients that Y had been exceeded. For smaller sites, this is a legitimate concern. Sites like Netflix, however, are hosted on massively huge distribution networks, so that their Y speed is so fast that it would take millions or tens of millions of X speeds to overload them.
Which brings us right back to "there is no basis for fast lanes on the internet". Fundamentally, it does not work that way.
The reason this is becoming a big deal is that ISPs are owned by massive media conglomerates who are starting to realize that equal access to the internet gives consumers choices, and consumers are choosing in ways these conglomerates don't like.
Comcast, in particular, has a dog in this fight because Netflix and other similar services are cutting into their cable television sales. People are"cutting the cord" in droves, because paying $10/mo for access to exactly what you want to watch, when you want to watch it makes more sense than paying $100/mo for more than you can ever watch, on someone else's schedule.
Comcast believes that they can make up these "lost profits" (different rant) by strong arming people into paying more money to access sites which compete with their non-internet business, or by charging those sites money for delivering more customers.
Of course, this is a fiction. As described above, you already pay to access Netflix as fast as your computer can handle it, and Netflix already pays to have enough bandwidth for all the customers who want to watch movies with them. The only way Comcast can create the demand for "fast line" pricing is by artificially creating a need for it. By illegally (not anymore) restricting the traffic, and then charging money to remove the restriction.
If this business model sounds familiar, it's because you've heard of Protection Racketeering. The FCC had just handed Comcast a right to legally charge protection money.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
paflyer
Final Approach
Hey, were you involved with the SONET rollout circa 1998-2000?Haha. See “jiggery-pokery”. Already covered.
Not really. The majority of VPN providers hide off-shore (if you look at their IP addresses) because providing it here means the carrier knows EXACTLY who they are and what they do, when they buy their bandwidth from them. They also have to fill out IP justification documentation for all the IPs they burn.
That’s said, the backbone providers don’t care. They get paid by you AND the VPN provider, so as long as people think VPNs are some magical way to hide from a backbone provider (they’re not... they know...) they get double the money for you’re lack of understanding that they can see the endpoints of everything. They can also just block the VPN provider’s foreign address space if they’re an overseas entity.
Case in point, Net Neutrality law here becomes absolutely meaningless once you leave the US. It is an international network after all. But you’ll be paying Global Crossing (full disclosure, I was a GC employee once after a merger) 80% of the time of you cross an ocean.
And oh yeah. GC wanted their HQ in the Bahamas for tax reasons. They literally have a broom closet there. Have photos. But the important point here is that makes the a “foreign” carrier in the eyes of the national “security” folks.
So they fall under rules the domestic carriers don’t — about reporting traffic back to Uncle Sam. Uncle said they had to provide fiber taps for Uncle to use pretty much whenever they felt like it, or Uncle would squeeze GC saying they were a “foreign carrier” harboring “terrorists”.
Not kidding. Real stuff. Cost GC a fortune internally to engineer it all for Uncle’s convenience to keep themselves off of the terrorist helper lists, after I was gone.
So Uncle has some wonderful visibility into GC undersea fiber traffic that they don’t have legally in a few other undersea fiber cases. Although most folks inside the biz figure all the carriers are playing along with the evidence that came out of AT&T in the 90s by a security and privacy whistleblower. But GCs is built in, thanks to GC wanting to avoid US taxes.
Ironic, isn’t it? The one thing the Net is absolutely neutral about is allowing Uncle to copy packets and look at pretty much whatever they want. Neutral may be a bad word, but “compliant” in a way that is not in any carrier’s customer’s best interests, anyway.
Tapitty, tap, tap! All automated. No carrier has time to have people really looking at the court orders nor wants to pay engineers to turn on data taps. They’re just installed permanently with some weak procedures to turn on particular flows. It’s too much data to cram it all through Uncle’s connections but the carriers like that anyway. Uncle always buys more. They pay for those circuits too. Big time.
Lindberg
Final Approach
Government created these monopolies.
Therefore, we should have the government continue to support the monopolies, at the expense of the American public?
No. The Telecom monopolies were a mistake, from day 1. It's well past time to correct that mistake.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
paflyer
Final Approach
When are you deploying Rugal Telecom?
Ah yes, when logic fails, break out the personal attacks.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
What did I miss? I saw neither a logical argument nor a personal attack.