Well Played

Screen shot 2015-02-27 at 10.28.52 AM

Verizon: FCC’s ‘Throwback Thursday’ Move Imposes 1930s Rules on the Internet

IBM Selectric version here.

Dash di-di-dit dash dash di-dit

17 responses to “Well Played

  1. Robert Plant

    So you side with a big net corp… Odd for you. Here, read this, from the dirty dirty EFF. Then clean the crap out of your ears and think for yourself.

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win

    • Simplistic—it’s like supporting welfare because you don’t want people to starve to death. Not that it matters, really. It’s one of those “Heads you lose, tails you lose” things. That’s the nature of Tyranny and would happen either way. Still, I’m surprised the EFF isn’t familiar with the concept of unintended consequences.

      It’s one of the problems with Rule by Special Interest instead of respect for private property. Always winners and losers, instead of benefits for everyone…well, everyone who wants to earn benefits, that is.

      The higher principle should trump IMO—private property is better than communal property. The article reduces to plain Pragmatism, the only thing left for most people these days.

    • Why dont you read what Mrs Wolfe has to say about the EFF, The tech version of the NRA. “We have to play along so we have a seat at the table”.
      This shit is more complicated than the memes and the anti corporation types would have you believe. I am not saying that the big telco’s are right, I just understand where they are coming from. Let me assure you this whole thing is not about “net neutraility” or “open internet”. What it is about is transforming one type of service (data connectivity) into a different type of service (POTS) with regards to government regulation. Next time you are watching a video on netflicks and its buffering thank the FCC.

    • “FCC’s new rules forbid ISPs from charging Internet users for special treatment on their networks”

      Translation: ISPs will have to spend time understanding highly complex rate mandates, spend time justifying their rate structure to bureaucrats, etc. Win for the large providers, loss for the mom and pops.

      “It will also reach interconnection between ISPs and transit providers or edge services, allowing the FCC to ensure that ISPs don’t abuse their gatekeeper authority to favor some services over others.”

      Translation: Bureaucrats will supervise policy between ISPs, who will have to show code or logs or even analyzer traces proving things are done right, at least when the bureaucrat is in the building. Adds more extraneous work. Win for the large providers, loss for the mom and pops.

      “FCC has banned ISPs from blocking or throttling their customers’ traffic based on content, applications or services—which means users, hackers, tinkerers, artists, and knowledge seekers can continue to innovate and experiment on the Internet, using any app or service they please, without having to get their ISP’s permission first.”

      Translation: More bureaucratic oversight and meddling. I’ll believe the government is helping me not be “exploited” by my provider when it tells Comcast to let me run a TOR exit node, so that people can avoid NSA snooping. What do you think my chances are of that?

      EFF just became a whore outfit. The real libertarians must have left long ago.

  2. If ANYONE thinks that net nuetrality is a big win, I want you to grab ahold of your ears and give a good hard tug! Get your face out of that deep, dark place!! For years, the telecom workers-not execs-found it ironically funny that the public had such faith in an institution that had more than outlived its supposed function. The main company behind this is Netflix. Live streaming, which wasn’t even thought of in 1930, burns up major lanes of use. They don’t want to pay for it. So now, the rest of us can pay, and pay, and pay for it. Think that is okay? Wait until the government “makes the internet more fair”. And then put more laws behind this fairness. Gives a whole new meaning to “Good Government”.

    • Thats backwards somewhat. Netflix WANTS to pay for it so they have dedicated bandwidth to their customers. No one blames the telco when their film is buffering they blame Netflix. This laws says the telcos cant segment out bandwidth with Class of Service for higher demand customers like Netflix at the expense of others. Think of it like this
      Internet connections are like pipes. You can only push so much down them. Right now Netflixs customers are using 50% of a pipe. The remaining 50% are shared by everyone else on the pipe. Netflix pays the telcos for that. They are actually paying a bit more because they have to be able to ramp that up to say 70% if the demand increases short term. So they pay slightly more for a Burstable connection. when that demand goes up to 70% everyone else now only has 30% to share so they get throttled back. That makes the hipsters and poor people whine about slow internet speeds. They dont like it that a big corporation can afford to pay for Class of Service and they cant so they get the government to enact this regulation. Now the Telco cant charge Netflix more to provide that burstable access and they will have to actually build out more cable and routes to provide for the demand. They will then have to increase the overall costs to everyone so that it covers the fees that Netflix was paying for.
      This WILL stiffle innovation and development of areas with little to no data connectivity. Its a cluster fuck and its a backdoor for heavy regulation of the content on data networks.

  3. Yeah, let’s error on the side of caution here. Has anyone actually read what the new rules are going to be. Of course not, because they haven’t been published or released to the public yet. All we’ve been fed is a few talking points. Does the phrase “we have to pass it to see what’s in it” mean anything? Obamanet? Go ahead, google-fu it. Here’s a start: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/fcc-confirms-net-neutrality-order-wont-be-released-today

  4. No one reads periods and hyphens as Morse. Where is the audio file of that text? Verizon can’t even get their outdated technology right.

    I’m not sure how the irony works out, but Verizon owes its existence to the last big government communications craze, the destruction of the monopolistic Ma Bell (the greedy people of MCI), bringing outrageously expensive chaos in its wake.

    Now Ma’s orphaned children, in league with the smut pandering ne’er do wells of cable television, want to preserve their own monopolistic status quo because it’s easier to pay off local politicians and utilities commissions than it is to negotiate with a federal agency under a single set of rules.

    There are no good guys in this fight. They are all “bad guys”. Shame on us for our willful dependence on the ‘net in the first place.

  5. The EFF article misstates some things even from what is in the PR exec summary from the FCC they seem to love so much. Start reading from the sub-para RE Standard for Future Conduct (which isn’t if it can be done on a case-by-case basis, like 5,000 or 5,000,000 illegals, what’s a few zeroes?). “Greater Transparency” discusses specific mechanisms to obviate having just that.

    Again I ponder, in an objective sense, which has more throughput: guillotines or gallows?

  6. “Net Neutrality” is about control, just like laws supported by the Gun Confiscation Lobby.

    The internet belongs to those that own the equipment, just like printing presses owners own the newspapers.

    When a new technology comes along, the internet’s owners will either join that or die, just like the newspapers are today.

    Last, the United States government has never protected anyone in its history, not once, not ever.

  7. This whole thing sickens me because all the defenders of “net neutrality” can’t even wrap their miniscule minds around how the internet really works. As Granadier1 said above, Netflix pays THEIR service provider more depending on how much data is going through the pipe at any given time. The problem is, the internet is an amalgamation of thousands of different networks from thousands of different ISP’s, universities, etc. Even though Netflix is paying THEIR provider for extra bandwidth, once that data crosses to another ISP’s backbone, that ISP IS not receiving any compensation. This ruling will make sure that they never do. Now some company on the other side of the country can force an overwhelming amount of data across your private backbone and you are the one that has to pay for the extra infrastructure to carry it. The morons and talking heads think this is some big win, but they will end paying for it themselves when the ISP’s are forced to raise their rates to pay for new and bigger lines. Unfortunately, those who don’t even use a streaming video service will now pay for for everyone else who does. The real bonus? The Fed now has the authority to regulate what they once let slip away from them. This will not be the end.

    • The end users pay no matter what. Either big users of bandwidth like Netflix get the bill and pass it on to subscribers or the ISPs charge more for internet access.

      • The end users pay no matter what.

        No. If Netflix gets the bill and passes it on to subscribers, nobody says I have to subscribe to Netflix.

        • This is exactly the problem, every customer of a given ISP is being forced to subsidize only those people who use Netflix. It’s basically Obamacare for hi-def streaming video. What a crock.

  8. West Coast Vet

    My own internet:
    http://piratebox.cc/