US Net Neutrality rules officially repealed

[civvver]

They really want to compete with att's time warner deal. I wonder what disney will do in response, if anything. Should've bought fox stock on monday, it's up 10%! This isn't shaping up to be good in my view. Next comcast will merge with hulu and att with netflix and then they'll consume verizon, and it'll be like americas two party political system of just two giant isps that also produce exclusive content. You'll need two modems and two routers at your house!

This is a good article about the rise of netflix and all the isps response.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/13/net...e-warner-and-comcast-and-disney-want-fox.html

The stock valuation part is fascinating. For example CBS has a value (EV, not market cap but related I guess?) of around 20 billion, while it clears like 3 billion in revenue. Meanwhile netflix only clears 1.1 billion and their EV is 150 billion lol. It's so utterly ridiculous how much people value netflix's stock. Originally what they did was kind of revolutionary, but it doesn't seem that special now, but people love the brand.

 

[Takhisis]

What should we notAmericans who depend on US-hosted servers for our stuff (e.g. our university, which has its student and teacher accounts handled as a subset of Gmail with a different domain) expect?

 

[civvver]

No idea yet but I'm sure whatever happens can all be resolved by charging the consumer more.

 

[Takhisis]

No idea yet but I'm sure whatever happens can all be resolved by charging the consumer more.

Read my lips: n0 n3w h4xx0rz

 

[uppi]

So basically att/directtv can throttle hbo if you are on another isp. And then say hey switch to us! Lightning fast hbo! And they can throttle netflix until netflix pays them a bunch of money, but customers who may have once dropped att/comcast en masse may not be as inclined to do so because now they can still watch hbo, tnt, tbs, warner bros etc.

I doubt they will throttle HBO for users on other ISPs. There is little to win by doing that and much to lose. After all, they still want people to keep using HBO instead of Netflix and if HBO is too slow on other ISPs, people might stop using and and switch to other platforms. They might invest less in the content delivery networks for other ISPs, but net neutrality would not change anything in that direction, because it only concerns the usage of the network, not the investment in the network.

However, they will most likely give their own content preferential treatment on their network so that the quality is best for their own services and others will have to come with an agreement with them unless they want to end up at the bottom of the priority list.

What should we notAmericans who depend on US-hosted servers for our stuff (e.g. our university, which has its student and teacher accounts handled as a subset of Gmail with a different domain) expect?

If you are using a service from a big US company, I wouldn't expect much change. Most likely you are connecting to a Google server outside of the US which has a Google-controlled connection to the US-hosted servers. Only Google could throttle on that connection and they have no interest in throttling their own services. If that isn't the case, the US-hosted servers will have a direct connection to tier-1 providers and those have also little interest in throttling, because they are paid by the GB, anyway. Throttling will be mostly an issue on the access networks and as long as your traffic does not got over US access networks, you should be mostly fine. It would be different, though, if you are using a service from a small US-based company that does not have much network infrastructure of its own and has to use the network of US ISPs. Then you might have issues.

The problem is much bigger if you want to offer a service to US customers. The you might be throttled and be forced to enter (costly) agreements with US ISPs to be able to offer decent service.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The all important question is how is this going to impact on our access to CivFanatics?

 

[uppi]

The all important question is how is this going to impact on our access to CivFanatics?

CFC seems to have a quite direct connection to Level3, so it depends on how much Level3 is interested in throttling. I suspect that they're not that much interested in doing that, but I might be wrong.

 

[Takhisis]

Hmmm, so I'm safe. For now.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I doubt they will throttle HBO for users on other ISPs. There is little to win by doing that and much to lose. After all, they still want people to keep using HBO instead of Netflix and if HBO is too slow on other ISPs, people might stop using and and switch to other platforms. They might invest less in the content delivery networks for other ISPs, but net neutrality would not change anything in that direction, because it only concerns the usage of the network, not the investment in the network.

However, they will most likely give their own content preferential treatment on their network so that the quality is best for their own services and others will have to come with an agreement with them unless they want to end up at the bottom of the priority list.



If you are using a service from a big US company, I wouldn't expect much change. Most likely you are connecting to a Google server outside of the US which has a Google-controlled connection to the US-hosted servers. Only Google could throttle on that connection and they have no interest in throttling their own services. If that isn't the case, the US-hosted servers will have a direct connection to tier-1 providers and those have also little interest in throttling, because they are paid by the GB, anyway. Throttling will be mostly an issue on the access networks and as long as your traffic does not got over US access networks, you should be mostly fine. It would be different, though, if you are using a service from a small US-based company that does not have much network infrastructure of its own and has to use the network of US ISPs. Then you might have issues.

The problem is much bigger if you want to offer a service to US customers. The you might be throttled and be forced to enter (costly) agreements with US ISPs to be able to offer decent service.

HBO has a stand-alone streaming service now like Netflix. I think it is still overshadowed by the streaming service they offer that is tied to a cable subscription but it does exist and would make a natural target of ISPs if it is popular enough.

 

[civvver]

Most likely none of that will happen. I'm just mentioning what they could do. The reality is they will probably negotiate more deals with companies like netflix to charge them tolls to upgrade their infrastructure more. We are going to need it when streaming 4k becomes the standard as 4k uses 2-4x as much as 1080p depending on the decoding. So they'll charge netflix some money and in turn netflix will raise subscription prices by like 10-20%.

This all kind of came about because verizon and netflix got into a fight about it. Basically verzion was lagging in upgrading their network because they saw it as fully adequate, but then people started streaming netflix non stop. So verzion said hey it's good enough for everyone else but you netflix, so pay us money so we can upgrade just for you. I can sort of see both sides, but in the end the customer ends up paying

 

[uppi]

Most likely none of that will happen. I'm just mentioning what they could do. The reality is they will probably negotiate more deals with companies like netflix to charge them tolls to upgrade their infrastructure more. We are going to need it when streaming 4k becomes the standard as 4k uses 2-4x as much as 1080p depending on the decoding. So they'll charge netflix some money and in turn netflix will raise subscription prices by like 10-20%.

This all kind of came about because verizon and netflix got into a fight about it. Basically verzion was lagging in upgrading their network because they saw it as fully adequate, but then people started streaming netflix non stop. So verzion said hey it's good enough for everyone else but you netflix, so pay us money so we can upgrade just for you. I can sort of see both sides, but in the end the customer ends up paying

If they can get away with it, they'll charge without upgrading the infrastructure. And they might come to an agreement with Netflix, but Netflix will want something in return: The preferential treatment of their traffic. Which means something else has to be throttled, most likely any emerging players which cannot afford to pay the same as the established ones. This will entrench the oligopolys even further than they already are.

ISPs are always lagging behind in upgrading their network, because that is expensive and doesn't bring much benefit as long as their competitors are also lagging behind. They're always selling much more capacity than they actually have. So to get them to upgrade their network, you need to ensure strong competition. Instead, killing net neutrality will give them the ability to hold their customers hostage so that they can get extra money without having to do anything else.

Of course, the customer will always pay in one way or the other. But the question is, how much of that is going into network upgrades and how much will go into the pockets of the companies.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

During the ongoing fires in California, Verizon throttled the accounts of one of the fire departments who were responding to the fires. They admitted it was an oversight but then immediately blamed the fire department for not purchasing the 'right' unlimited plan. Yup, the fire department did have an unlimited plan but it wasn't really unlimited. The overturned Net Neutrality regulations had a mechanism to remedy problems like this but of course that went out the window.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

It's an 'oversight' they also made in December 2017 when they throttled the fire department, and will probably be an 'oversight' when it happens again in like 6 months. And why is a fire department having to shop for plans like this? Ridiculous.

 

[Commodore]

And why is a fire department having to shop for plans like this? Ridiculous.

Are they providing their own communication infrastructure and equipment or are they relying on the infrastructure that private companies have set up? Since they rely on the infrastructure set up by private organizations, then they get the same treatment any other customer would get.

If they don't like it, then maybe they should purchase some surplus SINCGARS radios from the military and use those.

 

[FriendlyFire]

My condolences. This is like the internet version of announcing you have some terminal illness.

You guys in the US dont know how good you have it.
We pay almost double for our internet access and our speeds are capped with download limits and even more usage speed shaping when we download a lot.

 

[Takhisis]

Are they providing their own communication infrastructure and equipment or are they relying on the infrastructure that private companies have set up? Since they rely on the infrastructure set up by private organizations, then they get the same treatment any other customer would get.

If they don't like it, then maybe they should purchase some surplus SINCGARS radios from the military and use those.

Alright, but then Verizon should be liable for any and all damages (especially punitive damages) as well as criminal liability for any harm, to property, animals or persons, that might have resulted from their behaviour.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I have never had a problem with comcast customer support. I've had them in for service calls that they could have charged me for since the problems were internal wiring issues, but they've always been very cooperative writing it up as their fault so I haven't been charged.

Comcast is great.

Now AT&T.

Screw them.:/

Though in reality, I think all companies have workers and managers that do care about doing a good job. So I never try to take it out on the workers. Their bosses though....

 

[Hrothbern]

Update:
Just one hour after Gov. Jerry Brown, California, signed the net neutrality bill Trump complained about it and....:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Sunday sued California to stop the state’s new law that would guarantee full and equal access to the internet, a principle known as net neutrality, in the latest legal fight between the state and the Trump administration.
The suit was filed shortly after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the net neutrality bill. The law is one of the strongest efforts in the nation to restore internet access rules since they were rolled back by the Federal Communications Commission last year. Governor Brown, a Democrat, has been a forceful opponent of many of the president’s actions, including on immigration and environmental deregulation.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that California’s net neutrality law was illegal because Congress granted the federal government, through the F.C.C., the sole authority to create rules for broadband internet providers.
“States do not regulate interstate commerce — the federal government does,” Mr. Sessions said in a statement. “Once again the California legislature has enacted an extreme and illegal state law attempting to frustrate federal policy.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/technology/net-neutrality-california.html

As a side note
Jerry Brown signed (that same Sunday ?) also .....:

California has become the first state to require publicly traded companies to include women on their boards of directors, according to a law signed Sunday by Gov. Jerry Brown.
The measure requires at least one female director on each board of California-based corporations by the end of next year. Companies would need up to three female directors by the end of 2021, depending on the number of board seats.
The Democratic governor referenced the objections and legal concerns that the law has raised.
“I don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its ultimate implementation,” Brown wrote in a signing statement. “Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. – and beyond – make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”
https://globalnews.ca/news/4502326/california-women-required-on-corporate-board/

I think I like California

 

[civvver]

Net neutrality law looks good. It's really simple, all customers get the same bandwidth. I don't see how any of it is considered unfair or more expensive for consumers.

On the other issue I'm not into quotas as a form of affirmative action. Discrimination should be penalized, not diversity mandated.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've gone on the record and said that I don't think individual states regulating the internet within their borders is a good thing.

However, I still support this law by California as it is clear the FCC has sided with the interests of corporations rather than the citizens of the United States on this issue.