Net Neutrality Explained

[harshness]

If regulations are imposed they will comply.

In the context of Comcast, I have my doubts. Their track record with the merger stipulations has not been remarkable and the whole point of the lawsuits against the State of California is to whack any and all remaining regulations on their broadband services.

When they complete that task, I envision that they move on to getting their phone service regulations tossed.

 

[ncted]

Study Proves The FCC's Core Justification for Killing Net Neutrality Was False

 

[comfortably_numb]

Study Proves The FCC's Core Justification for Killing Net Neutrality Was False

I would take anything released by Vice with a very large grain of salt. They are not a news organization.

My ISP invested in significant speed increases after NN was repealed. Where I had 10/1.5 before, I now have 50/10.

Also, see this thread: Letter from my Congresswoman

 

[harshness]

The study assumes that there was great impetus to expand. I'm not sure that motivation was heartfelt.

If all of the talk of expansion plans was little more than lipservice to appease Capitol Hill, it is no surprise that neither Net Neutrality nor its repeal had a significant impact on expansion.

At the same time, you can't just turn the expansion machine back on and have it pick up where it left off.

 

[ncted]

I would take anything released by Vice with a very large grain of salt. They are not a news organization.

My ISP invested in significant speed increases after NN was repealed. Where I had 10/1.5 before, I now have 50/10.

Also, see this thread: Letter from my Congresswoman

I was more interested in the actual study than who reported on it. Repealing NN was almost certainly illegal which should come as a surprise to no one, given who is running the FCC. BTW: Pai's FCC is spending less money than previously planned on rural and underserved-area broadband, so I wouldn't get too excited about it.

 

[Juan]

I have never seen so many people upset about not having a service that allows commercial entities to spy on your every move and then sell that info to advertisers

I was more interested in the actual study than who reported on it. Repealing NN was almost certainly illegal which should come as a surprise to no one, given who is running the FCC. BTW: Pai's FCC is spending less money than previously planned on rural and underserved-area broadband, so I wouldn't get too excited about it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[comfortably_numb]

I have never seen so many people upset about not having a service that allows commercial entities to spy on your every move and then sell that info to advertisers

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

That service is already here Internet Studies

Surprise- it's not the carriers and ISP's that are doing it. It's Amazon and Google.

 

[Juan]

Guess again...they all do it

That service is already here Internet Studies

Surprise- it's not the carriers and ISP's that are doing it. It's Amazon and Google.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[Justin Hill]

Amazon and Google should be investigated for spying on people...

 

[ncted]

I have never seen so many people upset about not having a service that allows commercial entities to spy on your every move and then sell that info to advertisers

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

Small distinction, but I am upset about a thing that was invented, developed, and built largely with tax dollars and incentives, which is being exploited by commercial entities to spy on my every move and then sell that info to advertisers, being further exploited and departing drastically from the original design philosophy where all traffic is treated equally, seemingly in an effort to extort money from people and companies who are already paying for bandwidth, with the other option being their traffic doesn't get delivered on time or at all.

 

[comfortably_numb]

Amazon and Google should be investigated for spying on people...

I can't stress enough the importance of double-checking your privacy settings if you use Chrome, Home Assistant, or Alexa. Sometimes the settings are buried deep within menus. Restricting access to your personal information to these companies, or to stop using their products altogether, is the best defense against abuse.

Dr. Epstein, whose extensive studies I link in my post above, suggests abandoning Google Search for Startpage.com, which indexes the same results as Google but without the human interference with results. He says you should abandon Gmail immediately, because Google combs through your emails. He also recommends the browser Brave over Chrome.

Facebook is by far the worst offender, and there's not much you can do except delete your account (I have never had one).

For Alexa, there is a setting to turn off the "spying" that can be found here:

 

[comfortably_numb]

Small distinction, but I am upset about a thing that was invented, developed, and built largely with tax dollars and incentives, which is being exploited by commercial entities to spy on my every move and then sell that info to advertisers, being further exploited and departing drastically from the original design philosophy where all traffic is treated equally, seemingly in an effort to extort money from people and companies who are already paying for bandwidth, with the other option being their traffic doesn't get delivered on time or at all.

What part of unregulated capitalism don't you understand?

 

[ncted]

What part of unregulated capitalism don't you understand?

LOL. Honest answer: I guess I don't think unregulated capitalism is a realistic thing to have, at least not for long as things tends to implode pretty quickly when there are no rules. The Tragedy of the Commons and all that. FWIW: there are still rules without NN, but the FCC has abdicated the responsibility for enforcing what would amount to anti-trust violations [without NN] to the FTC. That said, I do not believe in some kind of idealized communist situation, where the state owns businesses or a corporatocracy where the mega-corps own the government. I believe that capitalism is the best system we've found yet, but like Jamie Dimon, I think companies have responsibilities, and they need to recognize them.

I prefer simple, light regulations like, don't pour poison which will sicken or kill your potential customers in the water supply or the air and, if you are going to participate in a shared, global network, where one of the terms of interconnection is passing all the traffic that comes and goes through your network along to its destination without impediment, you do not impede the traffic. Does that mean you cannot prioritize public safety traffic? no. Does that mean you can't shake down an internet video company you think will compete with your legacy cable product for millions to get access to your internet customers? yes.

 

[Juan]

Small distinction, but I am upset about a thing that was invented, developed, and built largely with tax dollars and incentives, which is being exploited by commercial entities to spy on my every move and then sell that info to advertisers, being further exploited and departing drastically from the original design philosophy where all traffic is treated equally, seemingly in an effort to extort money from people and companies who are already paying for bandwidth, with the other option being their traffic doesn't get delivered on time or at all.

that's a nice theory but that's not reality...if you want everyone to have low cost best effort internet traffic on a system that was never designed for heavy video traffic..that's just great..but if you want gigabit internet speeds at an affordable price...netflix and google are going to have to fork over some cash..the internet is a collection of private networks that the public is allowed to use..the government may provide funding to allow rural areas access to the internet but the internet is no different than your local electric company..the more you use..the more you pay...some customers..as in businesses get priority service residential customers

 

[Juan]

I can't stress enough the importance of double-checking your privacy settings if you use Chrome, Home Assistant, or Alexa. Sometimes the settings are buried deep within menus. Restricting access to your personal information to these companies, or to stop using their products altogether, is the best defense against abuse.

Dr. Epstein, whose extensive studies I link in my post above, suggests abandoning Google Search for Startpage.com, which indexes the same results as Google but without the human interference with results. He says you should abandon Gmail immediately, because Google combs through your emails. He also recommends the browser Brave over Chrome.

Facebook is by far the worst offender, and there's not much you can do except delete your account (I have never had one).

For Alexa, there is a setting to turn off the "spying" that can be found here:

View attachment 140838

View attachment 140839

silly rabbit..they also collect the info at the sites you visit..track your purchases..no matter what setting you apply..now..if you wanted an encrypted VPN that would help

 

[comfortably_numb]

silly rabbit..they also collect the info at the sites you visit..track your purchases..no matter what setting you apply..now..if you wanted an encrypted VPN that would help

Of course some actions are trackable, like purchases as you say. I would presume the user of an online shopping service would also assume the retailer is keeping track of their purchasing habits.

The suggestions listed above are best practices for those who don't want to use a VPN everywhere they go, or stay offline completely.

 

[TheKrell]

that's a nice theory but that's not reality...if you want everyone to have low cost best effort internet traffic on a system that was never designed for heavy video traffic..that's just great..but if you want gigabit internet speeds at an affordable price...netflix and google are going to have to fork over some cash..the internet is a collection of private networks that the public is allowed to use..the government may provide funding to allow rural areas access to the internet but the internet is no different than your local electric company..the more you use..the more you pay...some customers..as in businesses get priority service residential customers

The problem with your argument is that Google and Netflix already pay for their bandwidth. When that astounding traffic passes through a peering point to your ISP, then that ISP has no right to charge Google or Netflix for the service you already pay for. It's double dipping plain and simple and should be banned.

 

[navychop]

Absolutely. They are already paying for the volume. And so are we. Trying to charge a provider more is just a money grab. Bordering on, IMHO, extortion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Juan]

No...the ISP has to put in cache servers to cut the traffic down....cache means a copy of a popular movie or show is kept locally instead of traversing across the worldwide web....so they charge google or netflix or whoever for the service...this allows 4k content without gumming up local internet pipes...since google or netflix is causing the issue..they should pay for the fix....live streaming is a different animal ..kinda like some one building a factory...with the owners of the road upgrading local roads instead of the town

The problem with your argument is that Google and Netflix already pay for their bandwidth. When that astounding traffic passes through a peering point to your ISP, then that ISP has no right to charge Google or Netflix for the service you already pay for. It's double dipping plain and simple and should be banned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[TheKrell]

No...the ISP has to put in cache servers to cut the traffic down....cache means a copy of a popular movie or show is kept locally instead of traversing across the worldwide web....so they charge google or netflix or whoever for the service.

Come on Juan, you're smarter than that. If Google and Netflix have the bandwidth to get those streams to your ISP, and your ISP doesn't have the infrastructure to give it to you, it's on them to fix their own bottleneck.