Republican's 'Net Neutrality' Proposal Called 'Bait and Switch' (techcrunch.com) 121
Remember that net neutrality legislation introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.)? TechCrunch is calling it "half-hearted" -- and suspect.
It's not going to happen, it wouldn't help if it did and Blackburn isn't someone you want writing this kind of legislation. Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content, and voted to kill the Broadband Privacy Rule.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
In fact, Blackburn's legislation would deal a "fatal blow" to net neutrality, argues Evan Greer, campaign director at the nonprofit Fight for the Future, writing in Newsweek: Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation that would permanently undermine the FCC's ability to enforce open internet protections. This bait and switch has been in the works for months. The telecom lobby's end game is to use the crisis they've created to ram through legislation that's branded as a compromise but amounts to a fatal blow to net neutrality... We don't need legislation that's been watered down with kool-aid.
A better solution, he suggests, is pushing Congress to overrule the FCC with a Congressional Resolution of Disapproval.
News flash, that's how it works (Score:4, Insightful)
Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation....
That's how our political system works. You need bribes, -cough- I mean campaign contributions, to get elected. Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do, even if it's at odds with the best interest of your constituents or the well being of the country. Conversely, if you're a special interest group and want to enact your agenda, you need to bribe, I mean make enough campaign contributions, to get your agenda passed into law. Who's bribing politicians on the behalf of net- neutrality???
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying our politicians are honest enough to stay bribed?
Tell me another one. It's not about money.
Marsha Blackburn is a crazy enough person that she believes her own bullshit. She's a hardcore fanatic that will let her own zealotry drive her to rationalizations that make a mockery of her own self-made assertions about her praise-worthy mindset of reason and logic.
She's proud of her 100% record on ticking all the boxes necessary for her political agenda, and she'd do it again because that's the
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Funny that only one party seems to be trying to kill NN. And healthcare. And a host of other issues that affect people's lives in dramatic ways. But they're both the same, surely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The rich people DO NOT NEED HELP. They have the money to help themselves.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:4, Insightful)
Both parties are working to aid their people. Democrats are promoting NN (for the poor people) and Republicans are promoting No Limits Capitalism (for the rich people).
Meanwhile the middle class continues to fade away. Neither party helps the middle class, both parties see the middle class as something to be milked and woo'd.
Re: (Score:1)
Obamacare (ACA) helped the poor and put limits on health insurers bypassing consumer protections, which helped those already in a healthcare plan; the middle class. This bill probably came to be because Obama was more poverty-orientated than previous presidents, as evidenced by his attempt to build a first-world infrastructure for healthcare and his speaking directly to Oklahoma prisoners (about the war on drugs). It's likely, why the Republicans threw a tantrum every time he spoke.
Obama had a majority in
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:4, Insightful)
The notion that Republicans are in the pockets of corporations in these industries while Democrats are not doesn't correlate to the lobbying money trail, suggesting that it's a narrative that's been manufactured by the media (i.e. fake news). The same thing happened with science funding during Bush 2's term. The media so badly misportrayed his science policies (excessively focusing on killing the Superconducting Super Collider and his ban on fetal stem cell research) that most of the public still think his administration was anti-science. Ask yourself - based on what you heard on the news, do you think Bush was pro- or anti-science funding? In fact his administration enacted the biggest increase in Federal science R&D funding [aaas.org] since Bush 1 and the 1960s space race.
You can even see [opensecrets.org] when this started to happen [opensecrets.org]. Up until 2000, contributions by the print, publishing, and newspaper industries only slightly favored Democrats. But from 2000 onwards, it's skewed to wildly favor Democrats, by about a 5:1 margin today. Around 2000, the media stopped trying to remain unbiased, and skewed unabashedly towards the left. (My guess would be the appearance of Fox News favoring the Right meant the rest of the media felt they no longer had to try to restrain their bias favoring the Left.)
Health care is more of a mixed bag.
Don't believe everything the media spoon-feeds you just because it confirms your pre-existing biases [wikipedia.org]. Do your own research to see where the money is flowing (to and from). The Open Secrets website is a great tool that's organized to be very easy to use.
Re: (Score:2)
So, telecom donates to both parties.
This is how you're supposed to do it, and that's what actually got Microsoft into the most trouble in the 90s -- their donations greatly favored the Republicans. When the Democrats were in power, MS had few folks to turn to. That's not how you do it. They wised up after the anti-trust trials ended.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Historically, contributions by the communications industry [opensecrets.org] has favored Democrats
Did you look at your link? They're grouping communications and electronics together. If you pick out just the communications companies - AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Cox - all favor Republicans. Be careful about how you use the term "fake news," it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Most criticism of Bush 2's science record was climate change, the stem cell business, etc. He also supported that "teach the controversy" BS, in schools. These are things for which his record is demonstrably poor. Spending more money in other areas does make up for suppressing research.
What your link tells me about print industry lobbying, is that the print industry doesn't spend money on lobbying. Compare to your link for communications lobbying - there's an order of magnitude difference there. (I was going to offer an alternative theory to your one about Fox News, but it doesn't seem necessary...)
Given that the person you were replying to was only claiming that the two parties are not the same, this seems to be born out by your links.
Re: The 2015 "net neutrality" is only 43% "neutral (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shorter Anonymous Coward: "We want to keep spewing our alt-right bullshit on social media without the owners of the platform deciding they don't want to be associated with literal Nazis".
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad acts are always a both party thing unless it's a Democratic thing. But I have still yet to figure out why most of the things happening now are mainly being done by the ruling Republican party and it is still the fault of Democrats.
Not that I care mind you, but I just love to see how people convince themselves their politics are correct.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad acts are always a both party thing unless it's a Democratic thing. But I have still yet to figure out why most of the things happening now are mainly being done by the ruling Republican party and it is still the fault of Democrats.
Not that I care mind you, but I just love to see how people convince themselves their politics are correct.
It's easy. Republicans screamed about Obama's birth certificate for 8 years, but it's Hillary's fault. Republicans chose an unrepentant birther whose tendency towards hysterical tirades and corruption is well known, but it's Hillary's fault. Republicans vote dozens of times to repeal the ACA, but it's Hillary's fault. Trump buddies up to Russia, and denies their perfidy, but it's Hillary's fault.
Transparent as glass, everything is always and ever will be Hillary's fault. Even the American Civil War. Hillary's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The DNC fiddled their primaries. That's a big deal: if it had happened one level up, in the presidential election, there'd be an urgent need for a restoration of democracy, by the courts if possible, by violent revolution if necessary. At this level, there's a simpler, easier solution: vote against them until they reform. However hysterical Trump and a segment of the Republicans may be, at least they're not as fundamentally corrupt as the present-day Democrats.
Really? And we've combed through all the Republicans' private emails to be able to ascertain that they're squeaky clean, just like we did with the Democrats to make sure they're dirty, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you feel like you will continue to need their contributions to win the next election.
And it's not hard to imagine that one could be wealthy enough to not require donations to run a successful election campaign, although I also imagine that the number of people who've done this in the past and managed to win is probably pretty small.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
This behavior is required by law. A long time ago the Supreme Court altered corporate behavior forever with a ruling that corporations have a duty to their stockholders only, and aside from taxes, absolutely no responsibility to the community at large. They also recently decided that politicians have a duty to represent their supporters, not their constituents. Then they established that a corporate person has a Constitutional right to free speech, with a decision that redefined political bribery out of existence- at this point corruption can't be prosecuted unless someone can find a legal document where both parties agree to a quid pro quo.
This is what happens when you use a few narrow issues like abortion and guns as litmus tests for judgeships. Since judges have lifetime appointments, Trump has wisely chosen to nominate Hitler Youth who apparently haven't even seen a single episode of Law and Order, and he is rapidly filling all the seats that Congress left empty during the Obama administration.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
This behavior is required by law. A long time ago the Supreme Court altered corporate behavior forever with a ruling that corporations have a duty to their stockholders only, and aside from taxes, absolutely no responsibility to the community at large.
One thing, however, does not lead to the other. Corporations have a duty to follow their charter. If the charter includes a commitment to community service, then the investors know what they're getting into when they put their money into the company, and the corporation can do all the good deeds it likes. Corporations are generally designed first and foremost to maximize shareholder value, however, and this is reflected in their charters.
Don't make excuses for corporate evil. The decision to write a charter which places shareholder value first is just that, a decision. It is a willful choice which we must not excuse.
Re: (Score:1)
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Really? It seems that even though many Democrats have taken money from the telecoms they are in favor of actual net neutrality so i call bullshit in this instance.
Re:News flash, that's how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Both do it, but both don't do it to remotely equal extents.
Democrats are generally a bit more supportive than their base of strong IP laws, that's probably because of donors in Hollywood.
But Democrats also support financial regulations that their base likes but their donors hate.
Meanwhile the GOP just enacted a massive tax reform that is almost purely a handout to their donors. And a lot of the Trump department appointees are simply industry representatives being asked to regulate themselves.
Basically the Democratic legislators represent their voters and are nudged by their donors, the GOP represents their donors and is nudged by their voters.
Re: (Score:3)
Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress, Marsha Blackburn, who has taken more than $600,000 from the industry, is pushing for legislation....
That's how our political system works. You need bribes, -cough- I mean campaign contributions, to get elected. Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do, even if it's at odds with the best interest of your constituents or the well being of the country.
Both parties are doing this, so this isn't a Republican or Democratic thing.
Yup, getting re-elected and maintaining party power is more important than actually governing for the/your people.
As Veronica said in Better Off Ted, Season 1, Episode 4, "Racial Sensitivity":
"Money before people." That's the company motto engraved right there on the lobby floor. Just looks more heroic in Latin.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad Marsha through a giant bloody wrench into your equivalence argument.
Twitter's ban on Marsha Blackburn's ad mentioning "baby body parts," explained [vox.com]
Planned Parenthood was in the business of giving American's the tools to exercise their legal rights at their own discretion.
Re: (Score:2)
s/though/threw
Can't recall the last time I made that typo. It's not even on my standard finger-fuckup shit list.
Re: News flash, that's how it works (Score:1)
You are right, the Republicans only want to return us to the state of having Lords and Serfs. Would have sworn that America was better than that.
So, basically, the choice is (Score:4, Interesting)
Having the FCC destroy the internet or let congress do it.
Choice #3 (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
If you could change anything by voting, it would've been outlawed a long time ago.
Re: So, basically, the choice is (Score:2)
Risk of fake news (Score:4, Interesting)
If local businesses, government, or organizations suffer from the effects of "paid prioritization", a solution is to make it so those are within the local network, before hitting a major ISP pipeline. That way locals would have access, but anyone outside the local community wouldn't have access because "paid prioritization" would consume all available bandwidth across the national pipelines. Then some vague "other" or "they" get blamed for a site being inaccessible.
The results are two-fold. One, foreign powers wouldn't likely be granted paid prioritization to influence elections. Two, if there is any meddling or fake news, foreign or domestic, there wouldn't be a nation wide internet to corroborate or collaborate to identify and challenge the "fake news".
Paid prioritization controls the national network (Score:4, Interesting)
That only works if all the towns only have municipal broadband that is entirely autonomous and locally administered. But the reality is that most people's Internet access are controlled by national networks. Paid prioritization just makes it easier for foreign powers to target the national network and spread fake news to the entire country of people.
How do you suppose you got your Internet access?
Re: Paid prioritization controls the national netw (Score:2)
Otherwise local municipal broadband is the end result of "paid prioritization".
Though "Paid Prioritization" might work, if it is limited to blocks of time, say two hour intervals. This allows entertainment companies to buy blocks of time during "prime time", keeping business and educational costs down for SIP service, etc., during business and school hours. It should also enable a window of opportunity for minorities o
Re: Paid prioritization controls the national netw (Score:4)
Even if all ISPs are completely patriotic, it's hard to distinguish foreign interference from grassroots movement. You only need to look at a few recent examples, e.g. Heart of Texas [washingtonpost.com]. Before ISPs and Facebook realize that they have been foreign sponsored, it would have been too late after the damage is done.
And seeing how the ISPs are able to lobby the government to abolish net neutrality, they now have enough monopoly and power so that they don't have to pretend to be patriotic anymore. In many municipalities, the telecom companies have exclusive access to the utility poles so even Google Fiber can't build new Internet access [tennessean.com]. Let alone common folks like you and me. And Municipal Internet is just not happening. Here is the list of states with conditional or total ban, or minefield in their laws [wordpress.com].
I still want to know how you got your Internet. You seem ingenuously optimistic.
Re: Paid prioritization controls the national net (Score:2)
Re: So, basically, the choice is (Score:2)
(2) Ignored but fundemental questions (Score:5, Interesting)
1) The differences between Title I and Title II?
2) Why the FTC and not the FCC should under current law handle internet regulation as such, and why no one is asking the FTC to do anything instead?
Re: (Score:1)
Title I is "general provisions" of the communications act of 1934. It isn't really anything in regards to behavior. If ISPs are "governed under title I", they're basically just not a common carrier (which is explicitly what Title II is about).
The FTC has jurisdiction to enforce trade, contracts, and to punish deceptive or anticompetitive behavior. The FCC has jurisdiction over national communications. The FTC doesn't have the authority to declare rules for ISPs, only to punish them for deceptive actions.
The
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically put, Title II regulates ISPs as common carriers, requires more restrictions on what they can do, and is focused on customer rights over corporate rights.
Placing ISPs under Title II also places rgem under CALEA compliance laws and regulations. There are also hate-speech (stupid term for a stupid concept) and obscenity laws as well under Title II.
Would this not play right into the hands of those who want 'backdoors' and those who want to control/restrict speech/content?
Sorry, but I don't trust any "pinky-swear, we won't try to use those oh-so-tempting Title II CALEA, hate-speech, or obscenity laws and regulations against our political opponents" promises. The
Re: (Score:1)
Placing ISPs under Title II also places rgem under CALEA compliance laws and regulations. There are also hate-speech (stupid term for a stupid concept) and obscenity laws as well under Title II.
Yeah, now they'll do it on their own terms, and nobody shall dare to question the freedumbs of the private corporate market that mysteriously has no competition amongst itself.
Would this not play right into the hands of those who want 'backdoors' and those who want to control/restrict speech/content?
Nope, the backdoor people will gladly do so under the blandishments of "security" and "protecting our freedom" and then when it comes to speech/content, they'll attack criticism of them as endorsing "terrorism" and "hating liberty" instead. They'll be fine. Terror and outrage aren't being banned at all.
Sorry, but I don't trust any "pinky-swear, we won't try to use those oh-so-tempting Title II CALEA, hate-speech, or obscenity laws and regulations against our political opponents" promises. They're politicians. Moving their lips.
Hence why we reject Ajit Pai's
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, perhaps you missed who wrote the original NN regulations you want back? (hint: it wasn't ISPs or the government...who's left? hmm...anyway, I'm sure they must be honest, benevolent, and fair)
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
ISPs are subject to CALEA regardless of their classification. CALEA was a separate FCC order issued back in 2005 or so.
Re: (Score:1)
Because 1) as the name implies, the FCC is tasked with that chore, not the FTC; 2) the FTC has limited power to set conditions of service, it handles quality of service (Ie. fraud and breach) mostly; 3) the FTC functions by ensuring competition and a fair market, which doesn't exist in the communication services and isn't wanted.
When data moved from dial-up to broadband/wireless, a lot of the protections (Title II) disappeared too. Now, the solution was easy, just re-write communications law to include tho
Re: (Score:3)
The differences are simple:
The FTC was used to regulate the monopoly that was Bell (Federal TRADE Commission can set limits on effective monopoly trade within the market). With all the carriers like Google threatening to come into the market they wanted away from the FTC oversight which is why Obama introduced his "Net Neutrality" rules, move ISP's away from trade oversight and under the FCC which puts heavy technical requirements on new players in the market.
Now that the incumbent ISP's have once again mer
Contradiction (Score:1)
Among other things, she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content
Already one of Big Cable's best friends in Congress,
Aren't these two at odds with each other? ISPs have widely resisted such proposals.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahaha the fascist arnt even cyypto anymore (Score:1)
Jesus, what a shithole USAmericans inhabit!
My name is better than "bait and switch" (Score:1)
I call it flurghuzert.
Paid prioritization. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the concern is how to protect websites from being "down voted" out of existence, in respect to QoS priority, etc.
My concern is what is this going to do to VoIP providers. Aside from VoIP/SIP providers, I don't know what is latency sensitive. I actually don't give a rooty toot toot if a Facebook page takes a few seconds longer to load, or a video stream has to buffer a little longer before playing (as long as it doesn't buffer during the stream). VoIP prioritization, and video game lag are about the only things that concern me.
Re: Paid prioritization. (Score:2)
There are many high bandwidth uses of the web which are neither time nor latency sensitive. These services shouldn't be given priority over that which depends on latency, to satisfy greed.
Re: Paid prioritization. (Score:2)
I'd rather have a legal ground for being fair to all, than to have my hand forced into being selfish and self centered.
Re: Paid prioritization. (Score:2)
It is worth mentioning that bandwidth IS scarce in many areas of the USA. Cities have an abundance of bandwidth, but more rural areas don't. I can't even get internet at my house anymore. Fortunately, I am "grandfathered" in to my DSL.
Re:Paid prioritization. (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's the holiday season, I'm going to assume that you simply don't understand how the Internet works, rather than dismiss you outright as a paid shill. On the Internet, packets move between devices called routers at a speed determined largely by the type of physical interconnect between those routers. At each router, packets are delayed. The delay is usually very slight. However, when packets need to flow through a connection that cannot accommodate the full incoming data rate, they are delayed until there is enough room in that connection to accommodate the additional packets.
As long as that overload is relatively small, users usually do not perceive the delay. For example, if the user is playing streaming video, the player requests several minutes of content at a time, and requests the next few minutes of content long before it actually needs it, so that by the time it gets to the end of the content that it has already downloaded, the next chunk of content is already there. Similarly, when the user is loading a web page, that initial latency is usually only a small part of the total page loading time, so the user doesn't really notice it.
There are exceptions, however. Some technologies, such as real-time streaming—things like Skype, video chat, etc.—are considered inherently low-latency protocols. Delays of even a few hundred milliseconds can make the difference between being able to use the service and being unable to do so, both because talking to someone over a high-latency connection is very difficult and because echo cancellation fundamentally depends on low latency. Thus, there is a fundamental, unavoidable technical reason why these protocols must be prioritized; if they are not prioritized, they become completely nonfunctional. Quality-of-service prioritization is critical for preventing latency spikes that would otherwise break these latency-sensitive services. So when the GP said that VoIP needs to be prioritized, it was not an "I want my voice streams to be faster" sort of desire, but rather an "I want voice streams to work".
Other services, no matter how much value other people might consider them to have, do not have hard latency requirements, and thus prioritization of those services provides no benefit to users. A user either has enough bandwidth to the destination to handle streaming at a particular quality or he/she doesn't. If the bandwidth isn't there, that problem can't be fixed by changing the priority. There are only two ways in which paid prioritization could affect the average bandwidth between a user and a given service:
In every case, paid prioritization causes harm for consumers, and benefits only the ISPs. In no case can it create any benefit for any consumers. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something—probably Internet service.
Re:Paid prioritization. (Score:4, Insightful)
Middle America Karma (Score:1)
Look at it from the telcos point of view, they get to sell customers internet connections, then resell those customers to websites, who then have to find a way to dump that cost back onto the customers. So customers ultimately pay for this via hidden costs.
That will work only in areas with terrible monopoly/duopoly internet access. If you have choice, costs can't be loaded because you risk the screwed internet companies making it clear costs are being loaded on by their telco.
Look at the voting demographic
Won Wurd (Score:1)
TRUMP!
Has AIDS from Moscow whores!
Something Stinks about this Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know what Net Neutrality means.
Re: (Score:1)
> That doesn't mean all bills on the subject will be horrible.
Maybe, but anything from Blackburn will be.
"she thinks it's the ISPs' job to police content, and voted to kill the Broadband Privacy Rule".
It's pretty obvious who owns her corrupt ass.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to make a law about Net Neutrality so we don't have votes made of 5 people making important decisions
But consider the alternative. A law would result in a lawsuit by parties on the other side of the debate, which would be ruled upon by a single federal judge (likely sympathetic to the challengers, of course -- they would carefully select the forum to increase those odds). The inevitable appeal would be heard by a panel of three appellate judges, and, if you're lucky, be reconsidered by the entire appellate court (generally around a dozen judges [cornell.edu]). If the Supreme Court were then to take it, the final call
Brawndo (Score:1)
Oh, there will be content restriction (Score:2)
Re: Oh, there will be content restriction (Score:2)
If the prioritization is based ont he amount of money, then each line on that whitelist is auctioned off to the highest bidder for a duration agreed upon.
Typical Method of Todayâ(TM)s Politicians (Score:1)
Newsflash: Life existed before 2008 (Score:2)
It's amazing to me how many people think that the US was this backwater, third-world country before 2008.
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:2)
Paid prioritization enables ISPs to increasingly oversell available bandwidth. Bandwidth won't be throttled, it simply won't be there.
I might agree to to paid priotization as long as key critical sites are not allowed to have priority. Such as ALL government agencies. All branches of the US government must be explicitly prohibited from having any prioritization of traffic, so as to be able to monitor the conditions of the network and ensure
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:2)
Now only those who do not pay for priotization will suffer. Which means it will take longer for issues to get resolved.
I also don't see where this will save me money. Before we shared the cost for the internet across everybody, and so i probably paid more than I should have. Now I'm going to have to pay extra for the services I do use, like VPN/RDP into the office for emergency use, or access to Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the real question would be why would a provider pay for paid prioritization if they cannot be throttled?
What was supposedly happening before Net neutrality was that ISP's were using packet shapers to throttle sites like Netflix and YouTube and when the sites started calling out ISP's for throttling, the ISP's claimed network congestion that would magically go away (cause the shaper was turned off for their site) if some money would be thrown their way. Net neutrality made this illegal.
Under the Repu
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:2)
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested. And then rather than everybody's bandwidth being impacted, only low priority traffic gets impacted. Low priority previously meaning UDP, like YouTube or Netflix.
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:4, Informative)
Throttling is reducing bandwidth regardless of how much is available. Basically it is creating "artificial congestion".
Prioritization doesn't reduce bandwidth per se, unless the network is heavily congested.
It's like the "toll lanes" on a freeway. It's not too bad for the people who pay, but it's a lane that was taken out of service from general traffic, thus making the traffic for non-payers even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
but If that's the case, why would Netflix or YouTube pay for prioritization when throttling is illegal
It doesn't matter whether the throttling is illegal. It only matters if the throttling happens. Netflix and Youtube can't survive without clean access to customers of ISPs. If the ISPs want protection money, well, Youtube and Netflix will raise the rates on their customers and consider it the unpleasant costs of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
There is everything wrong with the proposal.
https://i.imgur.com/YFg4yf0.pn... [imgur.com] - hi, look at my first month bill of service. No, there are not multiple lines. No, I paid for the phone outright. No, no tethering, no jetpack modem, nada except the basic 'unlimited' package.
Welcome to your new world of pay-for fast lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
You're so full of shit. My phone bill hasn't changed and I HAVE bought an Iphone(2 actually) and I DO have unlimited data. AND AND I DO get good speeds. Take your fake bullshit elsewhere. also Sprint. people like you that lie to try to make a point, do nothing to help the cause you're trying to help.
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You call someone a liar for posting their experience and possibly being erroneous about the reason?
It muddies the water, one of the more damaging things you can do for your own side in any discussion. Yeah, the GP might have been harsh, but the GGP is doing no one any favors here.
Re: There is nothing wrong with the proposal (Score:2)
Yeah, you're totally full of shit. That bill has absolutely zero to do with net neutrality.