Don't understand Net Neutrality? Details too boring for you? Watch this
 

Great vid, and it's not as boring as reading a User Agreement.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fpbOEoRrHyU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LOL thank you for the schooling.

Awesome. Now hopefully the FCC will listen.

One could hope..


John Oliver Helps Rally 45,000 Net Neutrality Comments To FCC

by
June 03, 201411:56 AM ET

Things are running smoothly now, but the Federal Communications Commission's public was so waylaid by people writing in on Monday that the agency had to send out a few tweets saying "technical difficulties" due to heavy traffic affected its servers.

Blame former Daily Show fake-newscaster and comedian John Oliver, who now helms his own show on HBO, Last Week Tonight.

On Sunday night, he went on a , ending with a plea to Internet commenters of the troll variety to "for once in your lives, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls!"

It appears they have. The FCC has received more than 45,000 comments on the net neutrality proposals since May 15.

Those just account for the comments filed to the official electronic commenting system. Separately, the FCC says it's received 300,000 emails it set up in late April for the public to weigh in on its open Internet proposal. For context, the next highest number of formal comments on an FCC measure is just under 2,000.

How did we get here? Well, the FCC opened up its initial on how it should , or the principle that data on the Internet should be served on a level playing field, without prejudice for certain companies who can pay to get content to you faster.

On the table that opens the door for Internet service providers like Comcast and Time Warner to charge for "fast lanes" to the Internet, which, critics argue, could leave out startups who can't afford to pay for a fast lane. Not just startups but major tech companies like Google, Facebook and others have spoken out against this proposal, arguing for more protections for the free Internet. More from Oliver:

"What's being proposed is so egregious that activists and corporations have been forced onto the same side. And you might wonder, if everyone is against this, how is it even possibly happening? ... The guy who used to run with the cable industry's lobbying arm is now tasked with the agency tasked with regulating it. That is the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."

The runs through June 27.

Could think of alternative names representing the FCC acronym. Hilarious and informative vid.

BTW: For those afraid of dipping into PARF, thread > http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/814158-net-neutrality.html

The fact that you net neutrality morons have to describe what you believe to be net neutrality in such stupid ways proves you do not know wtf you are talking about.

Please mr big cable company. Explain it to us.


Kinda like sammy talking about big oil though. Your bias shows through. ;)

What r u talking about? I have no bias.

Net neutrality really is a bad idea. But wtf ever you wanna believe man. U already lost your limp wristed fight with the FCC anyways.

a bad idea eh?

you mean how the internet has run for the last 25+ years is a bad idea? really? :rolleyes:

Does Net Neutrality cause water leaks in basements? ;) Is that why is is bad? :D

Cocker, the terms the net neutrality people want to set are not currently in place. Please explain everything you just said because it makes no sense.

Without getting into the politics of it all, I think that (what I highlighted in red) is the crux of the matter from my perspective Wayne. Where we differ (I think) is that I do not believe that a "content provider" (likely the largest "consumers" too) should be able to buy advantages (or be held ho$tage) over other content providers/users. I'm not talking about network flow control, class of service, use of "bandwidth" (my how I do HATE that terminology :)) Netflix vs VOIP, etc. but am referring to the POWER$ that be being "potentially" able to alter what has for the most part been a "level playing field" for all. The potential for abuse is just to tempting and is absolutely there imo. So from a purely hypothetical perspective, do you believe that a big money player/consumer should be able to "buy" an advantage....I simply don't. As a prime example for the potential of abuse, I would offer the recent disclosure of how the "high frequency traders" on Wall Street and their "private" Internet/Intranet backbone infrastructure allowed them to clearly have an advantage over the competition. And for Kyle...I do prefer "maroon" if you don't mind me asking :p

How is that abuse? You could have gotten in on that. Go build your own network if millisecond advantage on stock trades is worth it to you. net neutrality won't stop anyone from doing that. There is a fiber bore going on right now through a mountain and a 2 millisecond shorter trip to the stock exchange is what is pushing the entire project.

You can get a phone at your house today that would ring the stock market floor as soon as you picked it up. That's been around for a long time but today, it's unfair or abuse or something.

You vastly overestimate my peon potential to play with the big boy$ :D. You started another thread sometime back and were questioning how someone who holds the "keys to a critical network infrastructure" could play favorites (or blackmail) for favoritism when HUGE $ are at stake. The example I provided is just one EXPENSIVE way to do it...were I still in the game, I could just as easily blackmail Pelican, et al and take "bribe$/payoff$ from those who want to take an "advantage" of my ability to manipulate traffic flow. Of course there are pros and cons to all solutions, but from a philosophical perspective, I firmly believe the Internet traffic prioritization should NOT be potentially controlled by BIG $. From that other thread, you didn't seem to think that was possible....I disagree.

Signed...

A former network maroon...

Now just a plain ol' MAROON :p

actually, it is the way the internet currently works.

I have to believe you are joking here. Messing with me. No it is not the way the internet currently works. Cogent just got another peering agreement pulled. Once net neutrality passes nobody will be able to pull peering with that worthless company.

Have you even read what the net neutrality people want because You have no clue what you are talking about.

once again you are getting into conspiracy theories here. Stuff that doesn't really happen and cannot happen / will never happen. Net Neutrality morons are not network engineers. They are Netflix et al. they do not want to pay for the pipe - they want something for nothing and they have gotten a bunch of people on their side with BS lies.

And once again I will repeat, not all traffic is equal or should be equal. 911 traffic is more important than you and cockers torrents and it always will be now that Net Neutrality has been shot down.

Let me know when you are ready to build something. I charge $4000.00 a foot to put fiber in the ground most places.

The problem here is that the Interwebs pipes are not meant to deliver individualized video in its current state.

And there is no incentive for upgrading aging pipes. It's so darn expensive.

We'll just have to disagree on the technical aspects/capabilities of network flow control Kyle :D. As a network designer, if you don't think I could easily manipulate and play "favorites" when big $ are dangled in front of the PTB (Power$ That Be), then that's OK too. You seem to have more faith in huge corporations than I do though ;).

As I have posted before in the other thread I referenced earlier, within the past 6 months, two separate co's have laid 1" orange fiber down BOTH sides of my neighborhood streets. We are still so early in stages of bringing HUGE pipes down to the masses that who knows where this will lead years from now. Up to now, physical "pipes" have typically been a constraint...once the huge fiber infrastructure matures years down the road, it will be much like our highway system imo. The "roads" could easily accommodate 120 mph, but "network engineers" (i.e. speed limit sign makers), can certainly put 35 mph signs on an 8 lane superhighway if they were inclined to do so. Now what could/would make them de$ire to do so? Hmmm....:p

Great video! In a simpler form it comes down to money and greed, providers are greedy and want more money, internet is exploding in content that taxes aging infrastructure, providers don't want to upgrade to support it. People want faster internet but don't want to pay for it. Providers don 't want to honour the contracts they signed with content delivery services like Netflix....simple

Money and greed

Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee?
How do we encourage/convince the big ISPs to improve their infrastructure? It seems to me that high speed, reliable, and openly available internet service is in not just in the the national interest, it's a national security matter. Do we continue to trust that to AT&T etc?

We don't need to convince ISPs to give us faster speeds. We need to convince netflix and the rest to stop using cogent for transport. If netflix had a half decent pipe at their end you could stream no problem on 1.5mbps DSL

Outside plant Fiber doesn't come in orange. If it was orange, it is conduit. They might pull fiber in later but yeah.

No, netflix is greedy. Content providers are greedy. Transport providers are spending huge amounts of money to upgrade the network. Netflix spends almost nothing for a couple of OC-12s from cogent.

Tactical fiber comes in orange; I've installed miles of it over the years. Maybe the government's laying some tactical infrastructure in his neighborhood ;)

Ok.
Thx.

Thinking back on the last 10 ten years, the big money didn't flow into domestic infrastructure (physical or human).
Meanwhile, other countries invested for the future while the US cobbles along.

If I understand what Slakjaw is saying correctly, is that he's OK with Comcast charging Rennlist a premium to deliver their content faster, while Pelican slows and suffers because they can't or won't pay up. Nevermind that Pelican is paying for the bandwidth from their own provider.

Next comes a premium charge for intentionally slowing competitors. I'll bet you.

We already pay for our bandwidth. Netflix pays for their bandwidth, too. If our bandwidth supports 20mbit, we should be able to access whatever site we choose at supported speeds.

It'd be like I-5 closing down freeway offramps in the city of Seattle, while offramps in Portland remain open, because they paid up.

or Chevron says "You bought a gallon of gas. If you're going to Portland, we'll deliver you at full speed. Going to Seattle, you can go half speed"

I read an article once that was along the lines of "OMG YouTube is paying Comcast....." yeah they should be if Comcast is providing them a service. duh. YouTube was installing racks into Comcast facilities. You boys think they just do that for free or something? I mean, what you have just typed here is not how it will ever work. will never happen. All these companies have peering contracts with each other and contracts with each customer. NAPA could not slow down pelican no matter how much money they wanted to offer Comcast + the 5000 or 6000 other ISPs in the US. What will happen and what already happens is stuff that needs low latency like voice gets higher priority. Why do you guys want to put so much blind faith into the Net Neutrality 12-year-olds instead of the engineers who actually know about this stuff. is it because the net neutrality maroons can make a neat looking colorful graph or something?

So we're all on the same page: the goal of net neutrality is to reinstate regulations set forth in the FFC's Open Internet Order which were invalidated recently in Verizon v. FCC.

Whether further regulations which build open that initial order are appropriate is a valid debate ONCE we've determined whether the initial order is appropriate.

I think the biggest problem is that the companies that actually have real infrastructure are tired of pissant companies like Cogent constantly dumping traffic onto them. put something in there to eliminate that and it would be a done deal.

Please read over the open internet order. It doesn't address peering or transit. If it's there and I'm missing it please point out where.

EDIT: Upon re-reading it seems like you're saying it's a problem specifically because it doesn't address those things, is that correct? It also doesn't address medicare or welfare reform, so what? If X, Y and Z are a problem and we can fix X and Y we should, that's progress.

If you're talking about last-mile service, I'm already paying comcast to access youtube. If comcast then says "for you to have sufficient access to youtube, youtube must also pay us" then I want my money back. They can't have their cake and eat it.

If its so great, why do we need to force everyone to do it?

Who what now? "It" being net neutrality?

For the same reason we have to force other monopolies and near-monopolies to provide reasonable service -- because they're immune to market forces which would otherwise motivate them.

You are paying comcast to build, run and maintain a network. you do not pay for youtube. if you want your money back, that is a bummer for you. IP transit costs money. like it or not.

Yup, and almost everywhere else in the world, it costs (the consumer) less than it does here, and they get better service.

What monopolies ??? You mean like Youtube? Yes YouTube is a monopoly so why are you on their side? there are like 6000 ISPs in the US. it is not a monopoly

This is also not true.... it is a common myth but simply not true.

How many customers would pay Comcast $40/month to access a network of nothingness?
Without youtube and other sites the service Comcast provides is useless.