Current Events > Help CE - - Net Neutrality

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I spent time after Thanksgiving hanging out with with friends, and the topic of Net Neutrality came up. I was arguing that it is time for a change to the policy so that ISPs can place priority on certain types of traffic.

Neither side could win over the other in this discussion. Since I will be visiting this same group in a couple of weeks, I was hoping that you people could provide me with more talking points to help my side of the argument.

Don't let me down, CE.
---

ISPs wouldn't be looking to place priority on certain types of traffic. They'd be looking to throttle back certain kinds of traffic or block certain services altogether. In the past, a few ISPs were known to slow down Netflix traffic. There is also an ISP that blocked VoIP services so that their customers would be forced to buy POTS lines from them.
---

Net Neutrality is bad because Trump says so. There I helped.
---

Also, it will be easier to censor out websites critical of the government, as is the case in third world dictatorships
---

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPqy_zWVAAA-xrX.jpg:large
---

CableZL posted...

ISPs wouldn't be looking to place priority on certain types of traffic. They'd be looking to throttle back certain kinds of traffic or block certain services altogether. In the past, a few ISPs were known to slow down Netflix traffic. There is also an ISP that blocked VoIP services so that their customers would be forced to buy POTS lines from them.

I'm looking for the potential benefits of the change, not the toxic and unlikely worst case scenarios.
---

Why the fuck is there trolling option on the report system?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

CableZL posted...

ISPs wouldn't be looking to place priority on certain types of traffic. They'd be looking to throttle back certain kinds of traffic or block certain services altogether. In the past, a few ISPs were known to slow down Netflix traffic. There is also an ISP that blocked VoIP services so that their customers would be forced to buy POTS lines from them.

I'm looking for the potential benefits of the change, not the toxic and unlikely worst case scenarios.

How are they unlikely worst case scenarios when ISPs did this in the past until the FCC told them to stop or until Netflix paid them off?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

CableZL posted...

ISPs wouldn't be looking to place priority on certain types of traffic. They'd be looking to throttle back certain kinds of traffic or block certain services altogether. In the past, a few ISPs were known to slow down Netflix traffic. There is also an ISP that blocked VoIP services so that their customers would be forced to buy POTS lines from them.

I'm looking for the potential benefits of the change, not the toxic and unlikely worst case scenarios.

List of potential benefits:

1. We can finally have IRL microtransactions so life is even more like a video game
2. ISPs can get even richer
3. Less hassle in choosing which services to use since you'll be limited anyway
---

CableZL posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

CableZL posted...

ISPs wouldn't be looking to place priority on certain types of traffic. They'd be looking to throttle back certain kinds of traffic or block certain services altogether. In the past, a few ISPs were known to slow down Netflix traffic. There is also an ISP that blocked VoIP services so that their customers would be forced to buy POTS lines from them.

I'm looking for the potential benefits of the change, not the toxic and unlikely worst case scenarios.

How are they unlikely worst case scenarios when ISPs did this in the past until the FCC told them to stop or until Netflix paid them off?

1) Those were learning experiences for the ISPs. They won't risk angering consumers by repeating the same actions.
2) This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.
---

lol... If America was still a democracy it wouldn't be a case of "everyone vs. a few people" with the few people fucking over 99% of the population. Guess what that's called?
---

Prestoff posted...

Net Neutrality is bad because Trump says so. There I helped.

Has Trump officially commented on the topic? If so, I could totally use this one.
---

"NN has been around for less than two years" Thats false.

Net Neutrality existed since the inception of the Internet. It was codified into law two years ago. Explicit repeal will lead to changes that you will not like.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

lol... If America was still a democracy it wouldn't be a case of "everyone vs. a few people" with the few people fucking over 99% of the population. Guess what that's called?

No society needs tyranny by the majority.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

lol... If America was still a democracy it wouldn't be a case of "everyone vs. a few people" with the few people fucking over 99% of the population. Guess what that's called?

No society needs tyranny by the majority.

"tyranny by the majority" is not the only alternative to a few people fucking over 99% of the population
---

Mr Hangman posted...

-Asking the government to regulate the internet more is just opening the door for more and more government control of what used to be a pretty free and open system. Don't be the fool who thinks that when the boot comes down it won't be on your neck.

Since when has the US internet industry been a "pretty free and open system?" ISPs fight tooth and nail to prevent any upstart ISPs from actually coming to fruition. There are multiple cases of AT&T and Comcast trying to prevent cities from forming their own municipal broadband systems as well as fighting to prevent Google Fiber from becoming a thing.

Mr Hangman posted...

-Network congestion happens. Bandwidth demand grows with availability, so there will always be congestion. When there's congestion, something's gotta give. If there is not traffic prioritization, if no one and nothing is deliberately throttled, then the congestion will slow things down for everyone. On the other hand, if you throttle only the highest bandwidth applications (like streaming HD video), then everything else (web traffic, email, text messages, DNS, voice calls, you name it) can continue functioning normally. Take that option away and what will ISPs do? Data caps, which are totally kosher by net neutrality.

Network congestion doesn't happen unless ISPs oversell their network capacity.
---

There is not one single benefit of removing net neutrality from the point of view of a regular person/citizen.

Im dead serious. Not one, single, even minor benefit.
---

This is some low effort trolling.
---

How obvious does trolling need to be?
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

I was arguing that it is time for a change

I have helpfully highlighted the part where you all should have stopped reading.
---

Eh I'm not too concerned, if it winds up screwing people over then maybe they'll fix it. In the meantime I have all my important files backed up on an SD card and I don't use the internet for anything significant, so the worst they can do is stop me from shitposting here
---

Mr Hangman posted...

I mean what you do with your internet connection. I agree that telecommunications is not competitive. But we already have politicians saying they want to regulate what Twitter and Google and Facebook can show you, and for restrictions on encryption, and for "internet kill switches". Don't help them get started with unnecessary controls over ISPs.

Net neutrality is not a gateway regulation to over-regulation. It's essentially there to make sure ISPs don't do shady things for their own profit like blocking VoIP services or restricting VoIP services to their own VoIP solution. Or throttling Netflix until Netflix pays them. If network congestion was such a problem, we wouldn't see average Netflix speeds increase almost immediately after the ISP receives payment from Netflix to stop the throttling.

Mr Hangman posted...

The vast majority of internet users are not using most of their individual bandwidth capacity the vast majority of the time. If ISPs throttled every user to their share of the main trunk at all times then everyone's internet would be abysmally slow. At the same time if they upgraded the upstream capacity so that everyone could be using 100% of their personal bandwidth at all times, then it would be a massive massive expense that went unused nearly all the time. Doing things your way is horrendously inefficient.

What's also horrendously inefficient is all of the service calls for slow speeds that happen in areas where ISPs have over sold their network capacity. That's a huge expense overall as it 1) costs money for the ISP to repeatedly send technicians out for issues they're already aware of and 2) causes longer lead times for techs to work on actual repair problems.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

That's because this money goes to building CDNs so Netflix can serve their content from close-by servers.

The expense of service calls do not come close to covering your total misunderstanding of network congestion and trunking. Bandwidth usage has increased massively since Netflix became a thing. It will take time for system upgrades to accommodate, and until then congestion must be dealt with somehow. Even after faster internet becomes common, you can expect users to find newer and more demanding uses for it and the cycle will repeat.

Bandwidth usage was increasing massively before Netflix became a thing and it can be expected to increase all the same in the future. Netflix started their streaming service in 2007, while Youtube started in 2005.

What has also increased massively since those days is the capability of end devices to handle massive amounts of bandwidth as well as newer ethernet standards coming into play. Host devices made the jump from 10/100 to 10/100/1000 years ago, and ISPs are now able to have 100 Gbps links if they choose to.

I think gigabit service today far outweighs an individual user's need for bandwidth (I've only been able to use 1 Gbps down a couple times since I got Google Fiber), but ISPs had the capability to offer 1 Gbps service long before Google Fiber came around.

Google Fiber made their announcement to come to Austin and the very next day, AT&T had ads running saying they were going to offer 1 Gbps service 1st, lol. So you'll have to spare me if I don't believe AT&T was only able to start prepping for this the day after Google Fiber made their announcement.

Funny how actual competition spurs ISPs do things they refused to do beforehand.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.

Ok what talking points do you currently have to support your side?
---

Mr Hangman posted...

Yeah of course Google Fiber pushed AT&T to be more competitive in that market. That's good. That doesn't mean network congestion is some mythical problem like you seem to think it is or that it doesn't need to be dealt with when it occurs. What do you do when you get stuck in traffic, curse the transportation department for not letting you use their secret high-speed tunnels?

I never said network congestion is some mythical problem. It's an actual thing that occurs when ISPs oversell their network capacity. When I get stuck in traffic, I think about how the road capacity has barely changed in the ~28 years I've lived here.
---

Mr Hangman posted...

What is your proposed solution to this supposed "overselling" problem?

To me, it makes sense that if an ISP offers a ~70% SLA on bandwidth, that they don't oversell their network capacity so much that users regularly can't get 70% of their bandwidth. As ISPs continue to upgrade their networks, I think this will become less and less of a problem. 100 Gbps is the current highest Ethernet standard and high level switches/routers are able to handle multiple Tbps. The technology is there, but lots of ISPs have been slow on the uptake. Sure, it's costly, but I think it's worth the cost for ISPs to upgrade so they have less wasted service calls and therefore more efficient trouble resolution.

And I've seen situations where an ISP knows its network is oversold, has a plan to do network upgrades 6 - 10 months down the line, but prevents its employees from telling customers anything about this. They (Frontier) pretty much expected customers to call in about slow speeds, expected trouble tickets to be opened repeatedly when dispatched techs couldn't really fix it, and expected customers to be angry and possibly cancel service because of lack of resolution.

Mr Hangman posted...

that means they're throttling users for no reason when there is no congestion.

ISPs already do (or have done) that. Like you said:

Mr Hangman posted...

The vast majority of internet users are not using most of their individual bandwidth capacity the vast majority of the time

Back in 2014 when Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon were throtting Netflix, it remained the same. The vast majority of internet users weren't using most of their individual bandwidth capacity the vast majority of time. Didn't stop them from throttling Netflix 100% of the time until they received payments.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.

Ok what talking points do you currently have to support your side?

I mentioned my only point in my opening post. My opponents' arguments were pretty weak too. My hope is that with support from you people, I can convince them that the elimination of net neutrality is the best option for us consumers.
---

Our internet is already slower then other well off nations and you are fighting for the ISPs( the people how used tax dollars get as big as they are now). To slow down the web even more only unlocking it from a price.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.

Ok what talking points do you currently have to support your side?

I mentioned my only point in my opening post. My opponents' arguments were pretty weak too. My hope is that with support from you people, I can convince them that the elimination of net neutrality is the best option for us consumers.

Ok what benefits does placing priority on certain types of traffic do, in your opinion? What types of traffic do you believe deserve priority? What types of traffic deserve to be throttled?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.

Ok what talking points do you currently have to support your side?

I mentioned my only point in my opening post. My opponents' arguments were pretty weak too. My hope is that with support from you people, I can convince them that the elimination of net neutrality is the best option for us consumers.

Ok what benefits does placing priority on certain types of traffic do, in your opinion? What types of traffic do you believe deserve priority? What types of traffic deserve to be throttled?

This sort of discussion is going against the intent of the topic. I wasn't looking to actively defend my opinion here. I simply requested supporting information.

My opinion on the matter aligns with our current administration. I trust that they have our best interests in mind. I just want to know what benefits their choices have for us. This information can help me to convert my friends.
---

TheRealDill2000 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

TheRealDill2000 posted...

This wasn't intended to be an argument. I'm looking for talking points to support my side.

Ok what talking points do you currently have to support your side?

I mentioned my only point in my opening post. My opponents' arguments were pretty weak too. My hope is that with support from you people, I can convince them that the elimination of net neutrality is the best option for us consumers.

Ok what benefits does placing priority on certain types of traffic do, in your opinion? What types of traffic do you believe deserve priority? What types of traffic deserve to be throttled?

This sort of discussion is going against the intent of the topic. I wasn't looking to actively defend my opinion here. I simply requested supporting information.

My opinion on the matter aligns with our current administration. I trust that they have our best interests in mind. I just want to know what benefits their choices have for us. This information can help me to convert my friends.

Ok, that's fine. I am asking you about your stance, not attacking you. How can I manufacture you an argument if I don't know what your opinions on these very relevant points are?
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Ok, that's fine. I am asking you about your stance, not attacking you. How can I manufacture you an argument if I don't know what your opinions on these very relevant points are?

You're wasting your time here.
---

lol so TC's gimmick really is to have the worst stances possible even if it contradicts his previous stances
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Ok, that's fine. I am asking you about your stance, not attacking you. How can I manufacture you an argument if I don't know what your opinions on these very relevant points are?

You're wasting your time here.

It's my time and I'll do as I please with it.
---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Ok, that's fine. I am asking you about your stance, not attacking you. How can I manufacture you an argument if I don't know what your opinions on these very relevant points are?

Fair enough. I was looking to be completely spoon-fed here, but I should at least be able to explain what applications there are to the policy changes.

-Prioritizing various types of traffic is uncharted territory. We do not currently know the benefits, but once the changes are in place, we will have the opportunity to take advantage of the new guidelines in creative ways.
-We could find benefits for giving health care/public services access to fast lanes. Streaming services can also take advantage of this. Other applications are possible too.
-We would all benefit from throttling propaganda sites.
---

There still hasnt been one single legitimate, non-troll benefit of removing net neutrality posted here or anywhere else
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32GWbQt_Zn4
---

Mr Hangman posted...

Rika_Furude posted...

There still hasnt been one single legitimate, non-troll benefit of removing net neutrality posted here or anywhere else

This is willful blindness. Let me give you one simple scenario. An internet router is congested. It's pushing through all kinds of traffic, including in this case torrents and web traffic. If the ISP is following net neutrality rules like you want to force them to do, then all packets are treated equally and so they all have an equal chance of being dropped. That's what happens during congestion, that's how the internet works. There is not guarantee of the delivery of a packet, it only makes a best effort and simply drops them when there is too much congestion. It is the responsibility of the end points to respond accordingly when the packets don't get through.

What an ISP could do (if you didn't insist some boneheaded legislators knew better than network engineers) is identify the packets by protocol and drop some selectively. If torrent packets are delayed and web traffic gets prioritized, what happens? The web browser gets to see their page much faster of course. But the torrenter? Their file completes at the same time. It makes no difference to a torrent when one particular piece arrives, it only matters when the entire thing is complete.

That's just one example. There are lots of scenarios during congestion when simple net neutrality is just dumb. But the proponents like to think congestion simply doesn't happen. They come back with points about how ISPs take government money and don't make system upgrades with it, or how the US internet is slower than some other countries, or some other legitimate but unrelated problem. Network congestion is real and it always will be no matter how much infrastructure investment is made. How to effectively handle congestion is a central engineering problem to the internet and not something to be trivially dismissed.

Didnt need to read your entire scenario, the solution is for the ISP to stop being so cheap and to have hardware to provide what they sell. But you wont accept this because "isp a BUSINESS"
---

Mr Hangman posted...

Network congestion is real and it always will be no matter how much infrastructure investment is made.

That's a straight bullshit exaggeration.
---