SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California's Net Neutrality bill just passed out of committee and is on its way to be voted on by the Assembly. If you are a California voter, please take a moment now to call your assemblymember and tell them to vote "yes" on SB 822.
Senate Bill 822 was originally introduced earlier this summer and would introduce some of the most robust net neutrality protections in the country, including prohibiting blocking and throttling of data, as well as limits on zero rating—a practice where companies provide access to certain parts of the internet for “free” and charge for others. But on the first go around, when being considered by the state senate Communications and Conveyance Committee, the bill was dramatically gutted, thanks to heavy lobbying from major telecom companies like AT&T. In response, the bill’s supporters scrapped it.
The bill’s author, democratic state senator Scott Wiener, went back to the drawing board and, with the help of the bill’s proponents, managed to get more committee members to back it, including state assemblyperson Miguel Santiago, who led the original effort to dismantle the bill. He then brought the bill back from the dead.
On Wednesday, the committee held a second hearing on the bill, which drew dozens of members of the public in support. After a mild debate, which included telecom lobbyists claiming the bill was anti-competitive and would have devastating impacts on consumers (while also misrepresenting the bill’s language and taking weird digs at the Netherlands), the committee voted 8-2 to adopt the bill. It will now go to the state assembly for a vote.
And California's other #NetNeutrality bill, SB 460, has also passed a vote and is on its way to another committee hearing. Californians, keep telling your assemblymembers to stand up for a free and open Internet. [Help California Secure Net Neutrality Protections: Support S.B. 822 and S.B. 460] — EFF (@EFF)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday August 23 2018, @06:58PM (4 children)
The whole "paid prioritization" is a scam to get money from big tech companies that have it. Big Tech earns money, the ISPs want it.
AT&T (for example) goes to (let's say) Netflix and says: pay us money and we'll make sure that AT&T customers connecting to Netflix get slightly better connections.
Result: Netflix pays. The price is absorbed into Netflix's prices, so everyone on Netflix (including Verizon users, for example) are subsidizing AT&T customers connecting to Netflix.
Verizon (for example) goes to HBO: pay us money and we'll make sure that Verizon customers connecting to HBO get connections so good that they rise to the level of acceptable.
Result: HBO pays. The price is absorbed into HBO prices, so everyone on HBO (including AT&T users, for example) are subsidizing Verizon customers connecting to HBO.
Clue: If my ISP thinks I'm using too much bandwidth watching Netflix, then CHARGE ME for it. It's not Netflix's fault. If I'm using that bandwidth, then I should have to pay what it costs to build, maintain and operate the local network infrastructure to connect to the big fat pipes.
Another clue: If you disagree with the previous clue, I'm still going to pay for it anyway. Just in increased Netflix / HBO costs rather than in ISP costs. OMG it's wealth redistribution!
Netflix pays handsomely for it's bandwidth at its end of the connection. So does HBO.
My ISP should be charging me to build out their network to provide the service I need, and to make a reasonable profit.
My ISP should not be trying to make their price look artificially small by shifting some of my ISP bill into my Netflix / HBO bill.
Just as Netflix / HBO pays for it's end of the connection, I should pay for my end. It should be simple and neutral. It doesn't matter what I am using the bandwidth for. If I could get that great bandwidth when connecting to Netflix, why shouldn't I get it when connecting to anywhere else? What if I connect to (say) Hulu which doesn't have a "paid prioritization" back room deal with my ISP? I should pay for my bandwidth, in my ISP bill (not in my Netflix / HBO bill) and get the bandwidth I pay for -- no matter who or what I am connecting to. The other end of the connection can pay for its own bandwidth, and only for its own bandwidth, as it should.
And what if I'm streaming from something that is neither Netflix nor HBO, but some little known new player? Then I get poor quality service because maybe this new player cannot pay the ISP extortion to get "paid prioritization".
They're not creating fast lanes. They're creating slow lanes. All of the lanes would carry all of the traffic in a neutral system. If it's congested, you need to build out more. Segregating some lanes into fast lanes is simply creating slow lanes -- especially if you're not building out the system then you're really punishing those who don't pay for the fast lanes. It's a scam to avoid building the infrastructure that people need.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday August 23 2018, @08:16PM (1 child)
It seems silly to me that you've had to go to the effort to write that post out.
Of course you're exactly right but it seems a bunch of A/C's seem to want to come here and post a bunch of Republican talking points instead of having an actual discussion.
None of them log in either, which leads to assume they're either stupid or trolls.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday August 24 2018, @04:03PM
Being stupid, trolls or Republican are not mutually exclusive.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday August 23 2018, @11:50PM (1 child)
Obviously, you're making an exception for QoS right? A truly neutral system is a bad thing. Some packets require low latency, while others can arrive later, and out of order. As long all that "unpaid prioritization" is equally applied to all traffic types regardless of source/destination, Net Neutrality principles remain intact.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 24 2018, @04:03PM
Yes. Certain traffic wants high throughput but is insensitive to latency. Other traffic wants low latency but is largely insensitive to bandwidth.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.