What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video
-
-
Sad day indeed. I wonder how many law suits have already arrived at the FCC.
-
DISCLAIMER: I do not mean to become political with this next statement, but want to ask a question historically.
Net Neutrality was an Obama era policy put in place by the FCC. So NN was not that old. What prompted for NN to be implemented in the first place? What problem was it supposed to fix administratively?
BTW, Netflix has openly admitted to throttling their own content, no matter the ISP, in order to get you to watch more of their content.
https://www.wsj.com/article_email/netflix-throttles-its-videos-on-at-t-verizon-phones-1458857424-lMyQjAxMTE2OTIyNDMyNDQxWj
https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-speeds-on-at-t-verizon/ -
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Net Neutrality was an Obama era policy put in place by the FCC. So NN was not that old. What prompted for NN to be implemented in the first place? What problem was it supposed to fix administratively?
The key thing that it exists to protect, in theory, is freedom of speech and press - or the effective use of them, as without it private companies can control what information, news, and speech is available to the public, including the knowledge of it even existing.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
BTW, Netflix has openly admitted to throttling their own content, no matter the ISP, in order to get you to watch more of their content.
That's not really relevant, they are not a monopoly infrastructure provider. That's like saying that McDonald's limits the size of fries so that you'll buy another order.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
That's like saying that McDonald's limits the size of fries so that you'll buy another order.
umm they do. They are sized and priced very carefully.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Net Neutrality was an Obama era policy put in place by the FCC. So NN was not that old. What prompted for NN to be implemented in the first place? What problem was it supposed to fix administratively?
The key thing that it exists to protect, in theory, is freedom of speech and press - or the effective use of them, as without it private companies can control what information, news, and speech is available to the public, including the knowledge of it even existing.
But private citizens can still get around such technologies with things such as Tor and VPNs. This is more of, do you know technology enough to find the information that you need?
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Net Neutrality was an Obama era policy put in place by the FCC. So NN was not that old. What prompted for NN to be implemented in the first place? What problem was it supposed to fix administratively?
The key thing that it exists to protect, in theory, is freedom of speech and press - or the effective use of them, as without it private companies can control what information, news, and speech is available to the public, including the knowledge of it even existing.
But private citizens can still get around such technologies with things such as Tor and VPNs. This is more of, do you know technology enough to find the information that you need?
No they can't. Because the ISP could simply rate limit or block VPNs. and since you can't see into the ISP's network, you don't know if the slowness is the internet in general, the remote side you're connecting to, or the ISP slowing you down.
-
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@nerdydad said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
Net Neutrality was an Obama era policy put in place by the FCC. So NN was not that old. What prompted for NN to be implemented in the first place? What problem was it supposed to fix administratively?
The key thing that it exists to protect, in theory, is freedom of speech and press - or the effective use of them, as without it private companies can control what information, news, and speech is available to the public, including the knowledge of it even existing.
But private citizens can still get around such technologies with things such as Tor and VPNs. This is more of, do you know technology enough to find the information that you need?
No, they can't. You need neutrality for that to work.
-
@jaredbusch said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
That's like saying that McDonald's limits the size of fries so that you'll buy another order.
umm they do. They are sized and priced very carefully.
That was my point. It's totally normal and correct for McDonald's to do that, and Netflix is exactly the same. Nothing related to controlling your infrastructure access.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@jaredbusch said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@scottalanmiller said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
That's like saying that McDonald's limits the size of fries so that you'll buy another order.
umm they do. They are sized and priced very carefully.
That was my point. It's totally normal and correct for McDonald's to do that, and Netflix is exactly the same. Nothing related to controlling your infrastructure access.
Right. Netflix is controlling their infrastructure... not yours.
-
I understand what you are saying. Since NN went into effect in 2015 were there any cases of ISPs throttling content before 2015, causing for the need of NN to be put in place? I don't trust the government to be the watchdog, that honestly is my biggest beef with NN. Just wait till the next time power shifts to the other side then NN will be back. Who is to say that the government wouldn't use NN to shutdown opposition on the net? Trust me I think both parties are corrupt in America, I don't think either one puts the citizens first, they put party first and quite frankly I really don't see much difference between the two parties. I understand your concern and it needs to be addressed, I am always afraid to give more power to the government. I think we are dancing around the issue here, the issue is the fact that ISPs are owned or own themselves content makers for example Comcast owns NBCUniversal. Charter Internet in my area sells Charter Cable TV. If the ISPs just did ISP wouldn't that address a lot of the issues. If ISPs were just truly ISPs then they wouldn't have an incentive to throttle content. I am not against an open and free internet. I am just not sure NN was the best way to go about it. I really think NN was more of taking a sledgehammer to fix something when we needed something more like a surgeon and a scalpel.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I understand what you are saying. Since NN went into effect in 2015 were there any cases of ISPs throttling content before 2015, causing for the need of NN to be put in place?
There are numerous cases of ISPs throttling and only allowing content of their choosing on their networks.
-
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
I understand what you are saying. Since NN went into effect in 2015 were there any cases of ISPs throttling content before 2015, causing for the need of NN to be put in place?
There are numerous cases of ISPs throttling and only allowing content of their choosing on their networks.
Okay can you point me to one? Not trying to be sarcastic. I really want to see these examples.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
-
I am not trying to be mean. I have been sick for a week now and I am just really grumpy. I apologize if anything I type today seems nasty. I am not trying to be.
-
@penguinwrangler Here is a more complete list.
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
-
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
The issue is that the FTC has no authority at all to do anything in these cases, until people / businesses are harmed. The FCC had the authority to prevent these abuses by requiring service providers such as Verizon to not do these kinds of things at all.
To equate all packets the same.
-
@penguinwrangler said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
@dustinb3403 said in What Net Neutrality Means to You SAMIT Video:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm
There is one such example. Even if you were a good customer of Verizon's you literally couldn't use a service that was built into the devices you wanted. I'll get a more comprehensive list.
To me that would be an issue for the FTC to take up not the FCC. The FTC mission statement is "Working to protect consumers by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices, enhancing informed consumer choice and public understanding of the competitive process, and accomplishing this without unduly burdening legitimate business activity." To me what Verizon was doing was very anticompetitive. I always ask myself whenever I see someone saying we need this new law, hold on do we have something that already covers this, or just needs to be tweaked to cover the issue.
Problem is, we don't care how competitive it is, that's a minor issue. It's the greater issue that the FCC is supposed to protect us from that is the issue. Access to information and resources shouldn't be seen as a consumer issue, it should be seen as a freedom issue.
