Lynx Defense

Net Nutrality

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,615
    96
    hill co.
    I'm not super tech savvy but I think I have the basics down.

    Net nutrality ends-ISPs can charge users such as Netflix, Hulu, or anyone else they decide to a higher fee for bandwidth. Or they could charge lower fees as they see fit.

    Currently with Net Nutrality- all are charged the same regardless of high usage/demand.

    I've seen arguments for both sides, and from both political sides. Mostly conservative views as that's what I lean towards but even then there are mixed opinions.

    Some see Net Nutrality as big government and on principle believe it should not be law. Instead the market should be allowed to work on its own.

    I've seen others who believe ISPs fall in to the same category as other utilities or broadcasters, and that ending Net Nutrality would open the door for ISPs to use pricing to silence "wrong thinkers", a weapon against the growing number of web based conservative outlets.

    This seems to be a pretty simplified description but it's about as much as I understand on the subject. I'm curious to know if any of our more knowledgeable members could give insight in to other implications for either side, good and bad.
    Texas SOT
     

    Bozz10mm

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2013
    9,616
    96
    Georgetown
    I was on the fence too, but after reading this article, I'm definitely leaning towards keeping net neutrality. Not that it means anything, I think the end of NN is inevitable.

    https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/20/the-implications-of-the-end-of-net-neutrality/

    "The effects of the end of net neutrality go well beyond the average internet user’s day-to-day experience. When you consider the impact it would have on everything from content creation to digital advertising, it’s clear the fallout would be colossal and far-reaching from both a business and broader economic perspective. While nothing is set in stone just yet, the future of net neutrality looks grim, and businesses all over the world should prepare accordingly."
     

    karlac

    Lately too damn busy to have Gone fishin' ...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 21, 2013
    11,774
    96
    Houston & Hot Springs
    Subjecting the Internet to Title II regulation as a "utility" basically insured a "neutral" Internets eventual demise, via regulatory capture.

    Case in point: Former FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler was a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, and while he showed a good deal of forbearance in rulings, being under Title II leaves it wide open to future politicization at the hands of corporate lawyer's and lobbyist ... under Obama this was basically a sleight of hand stopgap measure to insure the eventual bending to prevailing political winds ... except the Dem's lost.

    What you really want is the government out of the Internet, give consumers more choice of local ISPs, and put the monopolist's currently running it back under control of the FTC.

    To those who truly understand how the Internet became what it is today, "net neutrality" is a bogus term, as well as a classic, Orwellian newspeak misnomer. Be careful what you wish for ...
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,615
    96
    hill co.
    To those who truly understand how the Internet became what it is today, "net neutrality" is a bogus term, as well as a classic, Orwellian newspeak misnomer. Be careful what you wish for ...

    And this is why I ask. It seems like a pretty important subject but one rarely discussed and even less often understood.
     

    Kar98

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2016
    5,071
    96
    DFW
    It's a lot of "on one hand, but on the other hand, yet on the other, other hand..."

    On one hand, streaming services make up 70% of all Internet traffic in the US, with Netflix alone making up 37% of all Internet traffic. To provide enough bandwidth to accommodate this, ISPs are forced to spend money.

    On the other hand, ISPs should be spending money on their infrastructure anyway, rather than just raking it in to fill their coffers.

    On the other, other hand, ISPs just gonna charge either the customer or the content provider. Either I pay more through my monthly ISP bill, or the content provider is gonna charge me more.

    Either way the customer is getting f•cked with a higher bill because there's no choice in ISPs anymore. Used to be there's like one or two infrastructure providers, and you could either go with them directly, or pick an ISP who leases his infrastructure from them and resells it to you, here's your internet, do whatever the hell you want with it, just don't break it.

    With the given choice as presented right now, there really is no "net neutrality is good/bad"
     

    robertc1024

    Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    Jan 22, 2013
    20,780
    96
    San Marcos
    I'd prefer something less regulated than net neutrality - say the ISP's cannot have service less than x% of their maximum consumer bandwidth. That way, a consumer can pay for more bandwidth, but the ISP's couldn't slow traffic too much to any particular site.
     

    TexasBrandon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2011
    4,471
    66
    Salado
    The biggest issue with this entire debate is that in the old days and golden era of the Internet 80s/90s/early 2000s, there were tons of ISPs and thus the consumer had a choice in who they could use for Internet access. I'm in the IT field, have been for almost 15 years now.

    Used to be an engineer now I'm a technical instructor as I wind down over the years. With all the mergers and corporate greed at an all time high, ISPs will start to do things less ethical. While some of the net neutrality things seem good, others not so much. It also places the burden of ethics on the ISP and if I have learned anything over the years its that ISPs always charge as much as they can and maintain their networks as little as they can. Case in point, Century Link who would buy up old telecom and ISP locations and use them in their current state and charge people enormous prices for basic access.

    Others such as Grande take the time to lay extra fiber, provide 1 Gbps, and even upgrade the consume at no cost. Yeah, there is a big profit margin for them to be able to do that but I still only pay 60 a month for 100 Mbps compared to 80 for 25 with CenturyLink. The US IT architecture is one of the worst in the civilized and modern world. Too much greed and corruption by nickle and diming the customer. Give them more control, and things will get worse. I have a buddy in India that had this same thing crop up and they told them to go shove it and its worked so far. That doesn't mean what works for them will work for us but still.

    I have a lot more to say on this but I'd be here forever. Basically, if the infrastructure supports 10/100 Gbps and they want to charge you more for that pipe, there isn't a valid reason. Equipment dies, gets RMA'd at times, but in the end, the life of the product can last many many years letting them make their income with little investment afterwards other than some configuration and replacement here and there.
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    The biggest issue with this entire debate is that in the old days and golden era of the Internet 80s/90s/early 2000s, there were tons of ISPs and thus the consumer had a choice in who they could use for Internet access. I'm in the IT field, have been for almost 15 years now.

    Used to be an engineer now I'm a technical instructor as I wind down over the years. With all the mergers and corporate greed at an all time high, ISPs will start to do things less ethical. While some of the net neutrality things seem good, others not so much. It also places the burden of ethics on the ISP and if I have learned anything over the years its that ISPs always charge as much as they can and maintain their networks as little as they can. Case in point, Century Link who would buy up old telecom and ISP locations and use them in their current state and charge people enormous prices for basic access.

    Others such as Grande take the time to lay extra fiber, provide 1 Gbps, and even upgrade the consume at no cost. Yeah, there is a big profit margin for them to be able to do that but I still only pay 60 a month for 100 Mbps compared to 80 for 25 with CenturyLink. The US IT architecture is one of the worst in the civilized and modern world. Too much greed and corruption by nickle and diming the customer. Give them more control, and things will get worse. I have a buddy in India that had this same thing crop up and they told them to go shove it and its worked so far. That doesn't mean what works for them will work for us but still.

    I have a lot more to say on this but I'd be here forever. Basically, if the infrastructure supports 10/100 Gbps and they want to charge you more for that pipe, there isn't a valid reason. Equipment dies, gets RMA'd at times, but in the end, the life of the product can last many many years letting them make their income with little investment afterwards other than some configuration and replacement here and there.
    I get what you're saying here, and don't disagree with most of it... but "net neutrality" as written by the left (Obama admin) is NOT the way to fix anything. It will only make it worse by discouraging investment- you can see it's done so much already, since it has been in effect as implemented by Obama's FCC since June 2015.

    Time to try something different that encourages competition and capital investment in the infrastructure.

    The cost to provide high speed internet the "last mile" goes WAY up as the population density goes down, as your time to recoup the investment goes way up. (Which is why comparing India to US is a red herring)
    If it's so easy, and the profit margins are so high, why aren't you building your own network and getting in on some of that?
     
    Last edited:

    TexasBrandon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2011
    4,471
    66
    Salado
    Understanding what goes into starting a ISP and how to integrate your network into the Internet is a daunting task. Have you ever built a network on a large scale? I have and believe me, while its fun it isn't easy. In fact I never said it was easy, what I said was that it has a huge return on profits from those already providing that service.

    The financial investment required to start an ISP is large, even for a smaller region. The problem is that the larger ISPs out there and the carriers (Qwest, Novolink, Verizon, AT&T, Mediacom, Charter, etc.) that provide those ISPs the transmission path are so embedded that unless you are Warren Buffet or some other wealthy individual it is nearly impossible to start your own. There are obviously avenues to be considered such as wireless but even those get massively expensive. If I had the capital to start my own ISP, believe me, I would.

    Additionally, much of the fiber that is used be America today has been laid for a long time. The new fiber are in the areas that every hears about on a regular basis, like Google fiber. Fiber has been in place and been upgraded over the last 35 some years since GTE rolled out the first fiber optic networks. These systems, while expensive have come down in price dramatically since multimode and singlemode fiber have become more mainstream. Mind you, its still expensive, just not as bad as the initial investment in 1977.

    As we advance fiber optics to go further and further through the use of lasers, more fiber can be laid from a single entry/exit point and less infrastructure in the middle is required. This helps drive down cost, at least partially. The other caveat is, while you may use the fiber to get from point A to point B, most of the cable going to your house is still copper. You convert from copper to fiber and then back, reducing cost by not running fiber to each building.

    I'm ETA and 3M fiber certified for install, maintenance, and planning so I know a bit when it comes to fiber. Net neutrality isn't the way, I agree but some of what is in there is a good working base. I don't know if there are any incentives from the government or other folks to start a new ISP, but if one existed, I would assume people would be jumping on it by now. We have entirely too few ISPs today that control much of the IPv4/IPv6 networks.

    This topic is a circular argument when considering the good/bad. In the end, what you said is more of a correct statement, net neutrality isn't the answer. Neither is handing over control to a group of corporations who will use anti-trust and never get penalized for it though. A separation of duties would be a good start. Carriers are their own entities but sometimes cross into the ISP side too such as Verizon and Centurylink. They both are ISPs and carriers, this concept should be split so that they aren't double dipping by controlling not only the IPv4/v6 networks but also the physical/logical network topology of the country.

    That's just my two cents from being in the IT industry and understanding how things work, at least from an engineers perspective. Some of what I know comes from experience and building networks while other comes from close colleagues of mine. I definitely don't have the complete answer or I would be the one proposing changes to congress.
     
    Last edited:

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    Understanding what goes into starting a ISP and how to integrate your network into the Internet is a daunting task. Have you ever built a network on a large scale? I have and believe me, while its fun it isn't easy.
    I have over 20 years as a implementation and design engineer building networks for the financial industry...(focus on diversity, low latency, and reliability from 99.99% to 100% uptime during market hours) from 56k and T1 to ethernet circuits including 40Gbps in the field, and 100Gbps in our lab... some of these networks span multiple continents, and some had thousands of subscribers. But these are private networks, not the same as public ISPs.

    Additionally, much of the fiber that is used be America today has been laid for a long time. The new fiber are in the areas that every hears about on a regular basis, like Google fiber. Fiber has been in place and been upgraded over the last 35 some years since GTE rolled out the first fiber optic networks. These systems, while expensive have come down in price dramatically since multimode and singlemode fiber have become more mainstream. Mind you, its still expensive, just not as bad as the initial investment in 1977.

    I'm ETA and 3M fiber certified for install, maintenance, and planning so I know a bit when it comes to fiber. Net neutrality isn't the way, I agree but some of what is in there is a good working base. I don't know if there are any incentives from the government or other folks to start a new ISP, but if one existed, I would assume people would be jumping on it by now. We have entirely too few ISPs today that control much of the IPv4/IPv6 networks.
    I'm really not in favor of "incentives" from the gov't to pay people to start ISPs... I could go on for quite a while about that as well... I AM for them getting the hell out of the way so that people that have money and want to invest it in something would consider it worthwhile. As the conditions are right now, I wouldn't consider it a worthwhile investment to build an ISP to compete with those that are in place now... and the ones that have infrastructure now KNOW THIS (they're not stupid)... so they have little incentive to invest to improve their network (there isn't any competition)

    This topic is a circular argument when considering the good/bad. In the end, what you said is more of a correct statement, net neutrality isn't the answer. Neither is handing over control to a group of corporations who will use anti-trust and never get penalized for it though. A separation of duties would be a good start. Carriers are their own entities but sometimes cross into the ISP side too such as Verizon and Centurylink. They both are ISPs and carriers, this concept should be split so that they aren't double dipping by controlling not only the IPv4/v6 networks but also the physical/logical network topology of the country.

    That's just my two cents from being in the IT industry and understanding how things work, at least from an engineers perspective. Some of what I know comes from experience and building networks while other comes from close colleagues of mine. I definitely don't have the complete answer or I would be the one proposing changes to congress.
    The way I see it, you have 2 paths-
    Socialism- the Gov't runs the internet... at the very least, they take over as carriers and ISPs connect to them to provide "last-mile" connectivity to customers. (ask North Koreans or Chinese how this is working for them)
    Capitalism- the free market determines who gets control- if a big, evil corporation gets too much control and starts engaging in unethical behavior then a competitor can take market share from them when public opinion turns against them.

    and right now we're straddling both of them... Gov't meddling in free markets by regulating them- which is just how those big corporations like it. They can deal with the bureaucracy better than the little guys, thus any competition is discouraged and they can charge what they want.
     

    TexasBrandon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2011
    4,471
    66
    Salado
    The primary issue with socialism is it doesn't work, no matter what you do. Eventually you run out of other peoples' money. The primary issue with capitalism in reference to the IT world is most folks outside of the small group such as us, don't understand much of anything other than what they are "told" by folks who don't have their best interest at heart. That or the folks that told them something don't know what they are talking about. My view is this is more of a society and educational problem than anything else but then again what isn't these days. People turn on CNN or Fox News and take that as gospel.

    The ultimate goal should be to get more ISPs and more carriers for the backbone. More choices forces corrupt organizations to either compete or die. With the current status quo, meddling or not, isn't working. Quit allowing mergers to occur and incentivize startup ISPs in some way to provide competition. Now some of this could happen when wireless becomes the primary means of data communication.

    Fiber is fast, but wireless is more convenient and with it evolving as it has, could service more people with less infrastructure. I could imagine having a multitude of choices from many different ISPs like in the old dial-up days for wireless communication, each using their own paid licensed freq. The current barriers for wireless everywhere is preventing this from occurring right now. In the end, we lose either way until a massive change in the internet infrastructure happens.

    I'm not disagreeing with most of what you are saying. I'm simply saying what we have right now is an interim solution that both works and doesn't work. Making drastic changes one way or another without considering alternatives seems to be how the US works these days, especially when this conversation we are having right now could actually spark innovation and evolution of our access to data.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,615
    96
    hill co.
    I'm one of those "last mile" people. Although "last 2 miles at the end of 6 miles from an intersection 6 miles from any relevant population".

    Our internet options are pretty minimal. Cellular hotspot is a fair option although service can be spotty. Areas nearby have had some luck with other wireless internet options using receivers/transmitters on nearby water towers and a roof mounted antenna to reach fiber. I live in a low area so it's not a realizable option, same for others in the general area. Satellite...not gonna do that again. Hell, dial up isn't even an option, lol.

    That said, it would be a HORRIBLE investment to a company to lay fiber. They would lay a couple miles worth and maybe get 10 subscribers. Just not gonna happen in a free market.

    The other option as mentioned, government incentive to install. Obamanet? I don't believe I should be paying for someone else's health insurance, and I don't believe someone else should pay for my internet. It's true the government has made major investments in communications in the past and could be argued that the telecommunication in the US would be decades behind if not for government intervention, but I still can't argue for such a thing without violating my own principles. And won't.

    Even if it were the case those lines wouldn't (and shouldn't) be coming my direction. The population expansion is primarily on the outskirts of already large population centers. It would make no sense for private or government funds going towards the 10 homes in the woods when there are 100 homes being built in a much smaller area elsewhere. In a few years that last mile will be 3 miles inside the city limits and house 10,000 people.

    The other thing that I don't believe has been mentions, or maybe I didn't understand if it was, is that the data usage is advancing parallel to technological advances. As soon as there is a way to boost bandwidth, there is a use for it already waiting.

    Used to be we waiting a few minutes for a basic web page to load, now we are frustrated if our movie has to buffer while streaming at 1080p. Soon as the bandwidth is available someone will start streaming them at 4K.

    Also consider that wireless and cellular tech is advancing quickly as well. At some point providers will have to decide to stop laying fiber because it will become the equivalent of running phone lines. It will come to a point where it is far more efficient to simply build a tower than run miles of cables and lines to provide internet service. The company that keeps laying fiber when that happens will not be competitive with higher infrastructure costs vs their competition.


    All that said, and possibly wrong, the infrastructure is not my concern as much as the use. I can imagine a world where a Clintonesque president starts pressing for a restriction on violent or dangerous content. Probably start with something like stormfront, nobody likes them anyways. Then it moves towards whoever else disagrees. Not that the government would use its power against political opponents *cough*IRS*cough*

    On the other side, the some can happen in the private sector, but my views on what a private industry can do are far more broad. The fact that our gov puts so much money in the pockets of these "private industry" providers puts a major dent in the idea of it being a private industry though.

    I have no answers, but I appreciate reading the views of those more knowledgeable.
     

    Kar98

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 8, 2016
    5,071
    96
    DFW
    Understanding what goes into starting a ISP and how to integrate your network into the Internet is a daunting task.

    xz6Xe8W.jpg
     

    karlac

    Lately too damn busy to have Gone fishin' ...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 21, 2013
    11,774
    96
    Houston & Hot Springs
    Infrastructure and local competition are the most important parts of the equation for consumers.

    Right now the big players are influencing both state and local governments to pass laws limiting who can provide access, in some cases even prohibiting municipalities from taking the initiative to provide access with local tax dollars. This situation is much easier to accomplish when you have a lock on the infrastructure.

    If we must have the government involved, which it already is, how about an Interstate Internet Infrastructure using the same concept as the Interstate Highway system?

    Just a thought ...
     
    Top Bottom