Only YOU Can Protect Net Neutrality

[Hobbes]

What you are referring to is when several ISPs had congested peer links with L3. L3 Peering where Netflix had chosen L3 to be a CDN into those ISPs had degraded service. This was not unique to Netflix or Verizon. The L3 settlement-free links were congested by unbalanced CDN traffic, and as it pertained to going into those ISPs, this affected all transit and CDN traffic from L3.
For other CDNs like Akamai, when a peer link gets busy they just requisition more peering. They did not suffer any of these problems.
It appears that the dip coincided with Netflix's rollout of Super HD quality to its entire customer base.
http://blog.netflix.com/2013/09/highest-quality-hd-now-available-to-all.html
http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png

I understand.
It is illustrative of the suspicion, founded or not, that they have an incentive to break things.
One of the cable companies was blocking Skype for a while because it competed with their telephone service and now some of the wireless providers are breaking TLS transactions on their email servers.

 

[Hobbes]

http://m.slashdot.org/story/209717

 

[LightningCrash]

That is all backed up with text of Commissioners' opinions, which is the best we have at the moment from the most transparent administration in history.

NTCA (Rural Broadband Association) says they only support the order "if the rules are clear and properly applied and calibrated", which means they will go whichever way the wind blows after official public release (if that ever happens).

It's only backed up by the text of Pai's opinion, which already coincides with your beliefs on the topic.

* FCC micromanagement of the Internet
> Only in Pai's commentary
* Rate regulation
> Only in Pai's opinion. In other opinions commissioners say this is not going to happen
* FCC approval of consumer plans
> Only in Pai's commentary. Disputed by other commentary.
* Estimated $11B increase in broadband bills due to increased taxes.
> None of the commissioners claimed there would be $11B in new taxes.
* Likelihood of slower connections (Europe is 23% slower on average and has similar regulation in place)
>Pai claims it will be slower, but doesn't even say 23%. Where did you come up with 23%?
* Reduction of competition due to higher barrier to entry
> grepped for barrier, reduction, zero results. Where did you find this?
* Despite 93% of broadband users subscribing to 17 carriers, compliance costs will likely drive many of the 3,000 rural broadband providers out of business
> No mention of compliance or comply in any of the texts.
* Definition of "broadband" for rural carriers changed from 4/1 to 25/3.
>Only mention of rural is to say there are over 700 rural carriers. Where did you find this?
* USF changed from 10/1 to 25/3.
> The only mention of universal in the opinions doesn't change its definition. There are no results for USF. Where did you find this?
* No bright-line rules - all interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
>The head of the commission says they're bright-line rules
* Advisory opinions are non-binding (meaning a provider can ask for and receive approval from the FCC on an action, and the FCC can then rule against that action at a future date).
>Advisory opinions are only available in certain circumstances, which we don't have text on.

 

[vvvvvvv]

It's only backed up by the text of Pai's opinion, which already coincides with your beliefs on the topic.

* FCC micromanagement of the Internet
> Only in Pai's commentary
* Rate regulation
> Only in Pai's opinion. In other opinions commissioners say this is not going to happen
* FCC approval of consumer plans
> Only in Pai's commentary. Disputed by other commentary.
* Estimated $11B increase in broadband bills due to increased taxes.
> None of the commissioners claimed there would be $11B in new taxes.
* Likelihood of slower connections (Europe is 23% slower on average and has similar regulation in place)
>Pai claims it will be slower, but doesn't even say 23%. Where did you come up with 23%?
* Reduction of competition due to higher barrier to entry
> grepped for barrier, reduction, zero results. Where did you find this?
* Despite 93% of broadband users subscribing to 17 carriers, compliance costs will likely drive many of the 3,000 rural broadband providers out of business
> No mention of compliance or comply in any of the texts.
* Definition of "broadband" for rural carriers changed from 4/1 to 25/3.
>Only mention of rural is to say there are over 700 rural carriers. Where did you find this?
* USF changed from 10/1 to 25/3.
> The only mention of universal in the opinions doesn't change its definition. There are no results for USF. Where did you find this?
* No bright-line rules - all interpretations on a case-by-case basis.
>The head of the commission says they're bright-line rules
* Advisory opinions are non-binding (meaning a provider can ask for and receive approval from the FCC on an action, and the FCC can then rule against that action at a future date).
>Advisory opinions are only available in certain circumstances, which we don't have text on.

Much of the above, especially the definition changes, are also found in presentations or speeches given by FCC commissioners to organizations involved in rural broadband access such as WISPA.

If you read the opinions and commentaries by the commissioners, you'll see that we have 5 commissioners with 5 different versions of what is in the order.

 

[LightningCrash]

Much of the above, especially the definition changes, are also found in presentations or speeches given by FCC commissioners to organizations involved in rural broadband access such as WISPA.

If you read the opinions and commentaries by the commissioners, you'll see that we have 5 commissioners with 5 different versions of what is in the order.

Ah, I'll have to google for those definitions. You said it was all in the text of their opinions.

I guess it's a big wait for those 8 pages of the order...

 

[RickN]

Interesting.

Which brings us to the pusillanimous Tom Wheeler. We don’t use the adjective lightly.

Let’s be absolutely clear about something. The Federal Communications Commission chief did not go to President Obama and say, “We at the FCC have studied the issue and concluded that utility regulation is necessary to assure net neutrality.”

Nothing like this happened. Mr. Wheeler was still trying to head off utility regulation when Mr. Obama, after election day, suddenly announced his support for what previously had been an extreme regulatory agenda. In one of many ludicrous ironies, Mr. Wheeler had just successfully romanced a core of the Obama political coalition-including the Rev. Jesse Jackson -to oppose utility regulation of the Internet. In a little-noticed, bizarro-world circumstance, the NAACP, the National Urban League, Rev. Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH and several other civil-rights groups are still rhetorically committed to fighting the White House on Title II.

Conspiracy theorists will have to put aside any idea that utility treatment was the secret objective of Mr. Obama and Mr. Wheeler from the get-go. Mr. Wheeler was blindsided too. It appears that Mr. Obama simply decided, after Democrats’ defeat in the midterm elections, that he would spend the last two years of his presidency catering to left-wing groups. If this had been a plan from the start, he and Mr. Wheeler never would have arranged events so as to portray the FCC chief as the White House’s quivering lap dog. Mr. Wheeler didn’t just flip-flop on utility regulation. He collapsed like a bag of air.

The FCC chief has been lying strenuously about all this for weeks, and perhaps may yet be rewarded with an ambassadorship or some other plum. But the original “Progressives” had higher aspirations when they created the idea of the independent regulatory agency. The FCC’s rule-making process is supposed to be deliberative and strictly defined by law (which is why its net-neut order will now be eminently appealable). It simply is not true that any FCC chairman in Mr. Wheeler’s position would have yielded to a policy diktat from the White House. An FCC chief with true “progressive” spine would have made it his top priority to protect his agency from improper political manipulation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-the-net-neutrality-crack-up-1425080173?mod=hp_opinion

 

[dennishoddy]

The only plus I can see on net Neutrality is that AT&T can't bully me anymore.

I'm grandfathered into the unlimited data plan, but when I get close to the limit, I get notices from them that they can't shut me off, but they can slow me down where I can't watch video's, etc.

I'll take the slow service before being happy the gubberment has taken over yet another part of my life.

 

[Mike_60]

How much data do you actually use every month?

 

[vvvvvvv]

How much data do you actually use every month?

I don't know what Dennis uses, but at 12GB/day or 365GB/mo on average, I'm glad I have no limits other than the size of the pipe. I've pushed max saturation (30GB/day) a few times.

 

[Defnestor]

The notion that the government would do anything to help it's citizens is a little naive. When's the last time anyone here paid a FCC commissioner a 250k bri... er, "speaking fee"? When this is all said and done, it'll be perfectly legal for the tech giants to bend us over backwards.
The interesting part is where the FEC comes in. Do you have a popular blog that takes a political stance? You may be in violation of certain rules.