How does Net Nutrality affect SE/XIV?

[ToasterMan]

We're not completely screwed yet. They'll have to defend this in the courts.

Meanwhile, if you live in the US, do your part to vote out the congress members who supported this repeal during the mid term elections.

YOUR VOTE MATTERS!

[Claviusnex]

This is what NN is actually about: corporations not paying their fair share. We all want corporations to pay their fair share, correct?
.

No corporation pays their fair share. Those costs get passed to the consumer regardless of who is charging whom. As an end user I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet with the expectation to reach all sites equally. An ISP deciding to throttle one of the sites I want to reach is not equal. I can also point out that due to the monopolization of service franchises many ISPs never invested in their infrastructure until they were absolutely forced to and then they did the minimum. So while end user demands have increased the ISPs share culpability for the capacity problems as well. Now I'm of the opinion it is the ISP company shareholders that should pay the cost for the ISP share not the end users or content providers yet the big ISPs seem to think it should be me paying for all.

[uvuvwevwevweonyetenyevweugwemu]

The arguments made sense tbh. In rl traffic there's assigned roads for specific types of vehicles. Simply put, .coms are getting too big, they need to reconfigure or rebased their connections to several destinations especially since they're the most crawled from other sites too. It's not really a problem for the game since we already have split datacenters. Customers should be left alone inside a protection law, it's up to them where they want their content from, but the content provider should either provide that alternatives or deny them access.

[LastFireAce]

I just wanted to say, I'm no complaining tho !
Was just asking what could happen to XIV/SE since the only game I play for the past 2 years :')
But I know more of less what could happen in general.

[Xtrasweettea]

Hello, ISP shill here again,

No corporation pays their fair share. Those costs get passed to the consumer regardless of who is charging whom.

Well, yeah, that is something I can think no one can disagree with on here.

It just seems from my perspective, that people don’t mind certain companies never paying their fair share.

As an end user I pay my ISP for a connection to the internet with the expectation to reach all sites equally.

If the ISP advertises it and the fine print shows that you should be able to reach all sites “equally,” then yes, you should get what you are paying for.

Here is the thing, “equally” is terrible goal to strive for. I will use your point below:

An ISP deciding to throttle one of the sites I want to reach is not equal.

Technically you are reaching the site “equally.” Equality, when it comes to connecting to something, is based on the lowest speed when connecting. Example, you have 10MB connection and you connect to Hulu, which uses gigabyte based circuits, Hulu will send packets to you at your base speed.

What may seem like directed throttling may not be at all.

Have there been cases of on purposely throttling connections to certain sites? Oh, yes. Comcast being the “main reason” for NN Title 2.

But, if on the network, everyone is not able to properly connect/poorly connect to an ISP, then they are still being connected “equally” on that ISP. Your goal has been met. You got what you paid for.

What you want is the freedom to connect to any site you want and receive great content that you ISP provider claims they will allow you to do. You want that freedom to be able to do this on any ISP.

Aiming for “equally” is just aiming for nothing. It is easier and cheaper to offer nothing or very little equally than trying to offer a lot equally.

I can also point out that due to the monopolization of service franchises many ISPs never invested in their infrastructure until they were absolutely forced to and then they did the minimum. So while end user demands have increased the ISPs share culpability for the capacity problems as well.

Not going to argue this because you are correct. Historically, this has happened.

Though, my prior posts outline why these monopolies exists.

They are here to stay as along as we keep treating the Internet like a utility and we keep voting in politicians that accept ISP money (and don’t have a spine).

Now I'm of the opinion it is the ISP company shareholders that should pay the cost for the ISP share not the end users or content providers yet the big ISPs seem to think it should be me paying for all.

Your opinion has some good merit. The boards that oversee these ISP companies do put in CEOs that lead the company in a way that may not benefit end-users.

The thing is that the ISPs built and own the network and the backbones within the USA. There is a regulatory board that is supposed to make sure that there are shared standards, but that is it. Beyond that, the board doesn’t do much. There are laws out there to help the consumer, but those only go so far as to not prevent the ISP from performing their job.

It is their network. They have built the modern infrastructure (either directly or absorbing it from other ISPs). The network was built with 5 to 10 years ago in mind (more than likely 20 years ago in mind). HD was not readily available in 2007. You Tube was still new. MMO’s in 2007 were WoW and FFXI mainly, which sent data differently in smaller packets to support 56k modems (yes, people used 56K modems still in 2007, not everyone lives in a city or suburb). The infrastructure did not keep up with technology. HD You Tube, HD Streaming video services, HD porn, games that require very small ping to function properly. That is all what, 5 to 6 years old, maybe 7 if we are stretching it?

Yes, the ISP believes you should pay for it, since you are the one consuming additional traffic that was not meant for their network. Yes, the ISPs want the .coms to pay for it, they are the ones creating the product/service and are using the ISPs’ network to ship on it.

But, no one wants to pay for any infrastructure improvements, or to pay for the costs of the additional energy required to run these devices constantly at near peak capacity. NN Title 2 just prevents the .com’s from legally paying anything. You will always pay more, regardless if it is a yearly increase (even under NN title 2) or forcing you to pay more for more data usage (no NN title 2 protection).

All of this because a set of corporations don’t want to pay their fair share and government officials who happily accept their money.

[Claviusnex]

The thing is that the ISPs built and own the network and the backbones within the USA. There is a regulatory board that is supposed to make sure that there are shared standards, but that is it. Beyond that, the board doesn’t do much. There are laws out there to help the consumer, but those only go so far as to not prevent the ISP from performing their job.

If your referencing the IETF I am well acquainted with it being a representative for my company from 1992 through 1998 and still having friends that are active with it. You are correct that its function is as a standards not regulatory body. Regulation is considered in the realm of politics and left to government.

It is their network. They have built the modern infrastructure (either directly or absorbing it from other ISPs). The network was built with 5 to 10 years ago in mind (more than likely 20 years ago in mind). HD was not readily available in 2007. You Tube was still new. MMO’s in 2007 were WoW and FFXI mainly, which sent data differently in smaller packets to support 56k modems (yes, people used 56K modems still in 2007, not everyone lives in a city or suburb). The infrastructure did not keep up with technology. HD You Tube, HD Streaming video services, HD porn, games that require very small ping to function properly. That is all what, 5 to 6 years old, maybe 7 if we are stretching it? .

Yes it is their network and much of it is older that 30 years old. To be frank we were talking about cable internet access hitting a wall back when I was still working with the IETF. Even then those of us doing operating system and hardware development were telling the cable companies they needed to start building up their capacity. The responses were like those of many large companies who are slow to change and put more emphasis on milking the cash cow of today while trying to ignore the disruptor of tomorrow.

Yes, the ISP believes you should pay for it, since you are the one consuming additional traffic that was not meant for their network. Yes, the ISPs want the .coms to pay for it, they are the ones creating the product/service and are using the ISPs’ network to ship on it.

But, no one wants to pay for any infrastructure improvements, or to pay for the costs of the additional energy required to run these devices constantly at near peak capacity. NN Title 2 just prevents the .com’s from legally paying anything. You will always pay more, regardless if it is a yearly increase (even under NN title 2) or forcing you to pay more for more data usage (no NN title 2 protection).

All of this because a set of corporations don’t want to pay their fair share and government officials who happily accept their money.

I have no issue with paying for improvements but it depends upon the end. I think it is the ISPs job to handle the backbone costs. For local infrastructure such as the 30+ year old copper that provides the internet connection to most people I have no problem with payments being the subscriber's responsibility. However I also expect the company to do more than lay it and forget it for that additional cost. The copper network that most of us are on is overloaded yet nothing is being done to fix this. Instead they complain about the backbone connection which is the cheapest place to add capacity. In fact I think it is frequently used as a coverup for the poor quality of their local networks.

As for the .com corporations. I could say they do pay their fair share as they pay an ISP to carry their traffic just as I do. So maybe the cable companies should be dealing with their peers or backbone provider. As to the Title 2 protections they worked for phones even after competition opened up the networks. The Internet isn't really any different. As far as rate increases they have been pretty stable in my area, Research Triangle Park, for the last 10 or so years. Mostly because some of the larger towns have a viable alternative service provider which help those of us in the boonies. We also have Google and Ting building or planning to build in the area putting further pressure on the cable/phone companies. Also for full disclosure my rates can never go up due my contract with the ISP but I'm an exception to the rule.

[Xtrasweettea]

Yes it is their network and much of it is older that 30 years old. To be frank we were talking about cable internet access hitting a wall back when I was still working with the IETF. Even then those of us doing operating system and hardware development were telling the cable companies they needed to start building up their capacity. The responses were like those of many large companies who are slow to change and put more emphasis on milking the cash cow of today while trying to ignore the disruptor of tomorrow.

I honestly do not have the breadth of knowledge and experience as you do within this industry. I have industry jumped from electrical (Power plants mainly) to over seas shipping and stevedoring, to now telecommunications.

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and history.

What you have stated above reminds me of how at the power plant I was working at, they had the same mentality of milking the cash cow with their current equipment. One of the transformers edging up there in the 20 year range blew out one day after we just got done with a three month outage. We had another month outage to replace the transformer. So, the company lost millions of dollar that month to fix one thing that should have been replace anyway during the three month outage that was planned. But, they had to milk it as much as they can.

I have no issue with paying for improvements but it depends upon the end. I think it is the ISPs job to handle the backbone costs. For local infrastructure such as the 30+ year old copper that provides the internet connection to most people I have no problem with payments being the subscriber's responsibility. However I also expect the company to do more than lay it and forget it for that additional cost. The copper network that most of us are on is overloaded yet nothing is being done to fix this. Instead they complain about the backbone connection which is the cheapest place to add capacity. In fact I think it is frequently used as a coverup for the poor quality of their local networks.

Sounds like something I can get behind for the local network upgrading. I don’t mind paying for that as a subscriber.
As for the backbone being the coverup for the poor local area coverage. I can believe that… especially in other countries. If it can happen in other places, it can happen in the USA. So I can argue against that.

As for the .com corporations. I could say they do pay their fair share as they pay an ISP to carry their traffic just as I do. So maybe the cable companies should be dealing with their peers or backbone provider. As to the Title 2 protections they worked for phones even after competition opened up the networks. The Internet isn't really any different. As far as rate increases they have been pretty stable in my area, Research Triangle Park, for the last 10 or so years. Mostly because some of the larger towns have a viable alternative service provider which help those of us in the boonies. We also have Google and Ting building or planning to build in the area putting further pressure on the cable/phone companies. Also for full disclosure my rates can never go up due my contract with the ISP but I'm an exception to the rule.

As point taken, though I will say that some of these .com companies do not come to us with the idea of having to have their sites to even match what they are asking for.
This is quite frequent, and it isn’t unheard of between the ISP companies.

Google and Ting planning to build within your area to force the hand of the cable and phone companies is something that I cheer for. That is competition.

[LaurieB]

I already spend 129.00 a month plus 14.99 equipment fee for internet that is capped at 50GB per month, max 25mps download, most times 10-17 in reality. These companies took millions and did not expand high speed internet https://arstechnica.com/information-...nment-funding/ http://thehill.com/policy/technology...ternet-service, they have done nothing. You trust them to be de regulated? Most people don't even know that 30 million Americans, like me, don't have access now and this will make it even longer. But they will keep the money, your money.

[LaurieB]

I might also add that many people here still use 56k dial up modems as they can't afford the 129.00 a month. That is the ONLY option here, and for many people in the United States. These satellite companies that supply this expensive service are raking it in because there is no other option and they know it. But, for sure they will be taking advantage of this deregulation's full tilt, and we as customers will pay even more for much less. Unless we sell our house and move, or they use the money they were given to expand. They won't. And being five miles from town, just five miles from "real" internet is infuriating..but money is what this is all about, who has the most wins, but these companies got a big win from this.

[Freyt]

I might also add that many people here still use 56k dial up modems as they can't afford the 129.00 a month. That is the ONLY option here, and for many people in the United States. These satellite companies that supply this expensive service are raking it in because there is no other option and they know it. But, for sure they will be taking advantage of this deregulation's full tilt, and we as customers will pay even more for much less. Unless we sell our house and move, or they use the money they were given to expand. They won't. And being five miles from town, just five miles from "real" internet is infuriating..but money is what this is all about, who has the most wins, but these companies got a big win from this.

So is it your understanding that that one provider is prohibiting any competition, and not that the local government has not provided a suitable environment for new competition to enter?