And I pointed out that rolling fiber to one tower is far easier than rolling fiber to thousands of individual homes. I can't believe I have to spell this out.

Right. There's nothing to compare, they're utterly different.

Admit it or not, you guys are loads of fun to troll. Peace.

Once again, pretending you don't care about the issue because you are incapable of supporting your comments with any facts or logic. You are adorable.

Just got this pop-up on pinside? Or is this from my isp or iPad?

IMG_0136 (resized).PNG

Pinside.

awesome. thank you, guys. I know it takes EXTREME circumstances for you guys to weigh in on politics. this is important.

i think most peoples' eyes just gloss over when this issue is mentioned, but it really is incredibly important for the future of communication and the free flow of information, ideas, and innovation.

So i'm a great believer in net neutrality but the current policy in the US is flawed and needs work doing to it anyway, but is better than nothing. But why anyone in their right might think that Trump and his band of crazies will listen though...

Please keep your political ramblings off the group. Thank you.

Yes please. I would join a different forum if I wanted to talk politics. Do people even read the forum rules before they start posting?

The banner is there, just for today, to raise awareness about (the importance of) Net Neutrality. I know this has nothing to do with pinball, but it has lots to do with the future of (sites like) Pinside. Net Neutrality is very important and I hope you will all take a minute to read about it and why it matters.

More info on: https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/

I wholly support you adding the banner and appreciate you doing so!

I want to voice my support for this as well.

Thanks to Pinside for supporting Net Neutrality! It's a big deal.

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

I got it at 1:30am, saw a pop-up, didn't read it because I thought it was spam and x-ed out of it. Unfortunate.

www.gofccyourself.com

That will take you right were you need to go. Then just click on express and fill out the form.

Look back at post #235. Cut and paste what's in that post. Thanks.

This was a real interesting read:
http://leftwardthinking.com/learning-example-net-neutrality-violations/

as I wanted to know real examples of net neutrality violations. Exactly why we need the FCC to back off of their plans to reclassify ISPs.

I have nothing to add to the commentary part of that link, but all of those examples are absolutely accurate, and those are only a handful of ones that have been caught or fined. The biggest one is this: Comcast owns NBC. It owns Universal. It also owns 30% of ALL internet connections in the US. That is a massive number.

Now consider that Comcast's NBC and universal, not to mention their Pay Per View and OnDemand offerings, compete with say, Netflix for your eyeballs and wallet.

Netflix comes to your house via the Internet connection that Comcast has complete control over. Complete control like disrupting your connection so much it buffers like hell and finally you cancel because "Netflix Sucks". YouTube is slowed down to a crawl (Verizon does this already). When you do a search for a DVD on Amazon, a Comcast pop up site comes up first, so you click that and buy there.

That stuff happens -now- and the internet IS regulated.

Here's my final example, the one that should make every American stop and think. I'm a small business. I sell advertising to local businesses. I'm not big. Comcast comes to me and says "we won't let people connect to your ads unless you pay us a premium $0.50 on the dollar for each impression." I'm out of business.

That happened (happens?) to a company in Dallas, Tx already. This isn't a free market. That's like Ford selling you a car and then wanting you to pay THEM every time you use that car to drive to a customer's office.

I F***ING hate Comcast

Although that's a totally valid feeling for you to have, it sure seems like mobile providers have much more dirty hands when it comes to this stuff. That obviously makes a lot of sense since their bandwidth is so much more limited, but they aren't just guilty of blocking bandwidth heavy apps. Mobile carrier exclusivity stuff has always been a pain in the ass, and they're guilty of it on more than just the hardware front.

Deja vu .... this is the exactly what I heard on a call-in show on XM radio this morning -- word for word.

I received this response from our districts congresswoman, after asking her to help stop the FCCs dismantling of net neutrality.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding Net Neutrality and Internet freedom. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Since Net Neutrality was implemented, it has harmed our technology sector and economy by categorizing data as a utility. This restricts self-governance relative to other industries that also have tiered service in conjunction with variable pricing and speeds, such as our rail systems, airlines, and postal service, which has priority mail, standard, and first class. In just two years under this regulation, domestic broadband capital expenditures have decreased by $3.6 billion. This loss of capital expenditures has hurt small Internet providers by decreasing the resources available for the necessary infrastructure investment needed to stay competitive in the marketplace.

I support the efforts to return the Internet to the people. The Internet has always thrived on innovation, not government control. The prior Administration had reversed the decades of bipartisan support that recognized that consumers should control and drive the information superhighway – not any one political party or agency.

Thank you again for contacting me. It is a privilege to serve you in the Tenth District. I may also be contacted at my Sterling office at 703-404-6903, or my Washington, D.C. office at 202-225-5136. By visiting http://comstock.house.gov, you can sign up to receive my email newsletters and follow my efforts to serve you. If I may ever be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Barbara Comstock
Member of Congress

The internet = rail service & postal service???

They did not come up with the initial concept or contribute to its initial development, but technically, they installed the cabling/fiber and networking equipment that made it accessible to everyone.

I received something similar.
-----------

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 2015 Open Internet Order. I share your belief in the need for strong net neutrality.

The new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, recently announced the Trump administration’s plan to dismantle the Obama-era FCC rules that required Internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast to treat all internet traffic fairly. This would unravel net neutrality and the FCC is moving in the wrong direction. It will neither invigorate our economy nor spark innovation. Instead, it will limit choices for consumers and greatly increase costs for American start-ups. Keeping the internet open is critical to twenty-first century freedom and innovation, for both businesses and individuals alike.

In 2014, I joined my Senate colleagues in writing a letter to then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to adopt strong net neutrality. I will continue to press the Trump administration to support a free and open internet and maintain critical consumer protections.

I believe the federal government can help ensure that all American households have reliable internet access at a reasonable cost, and will continue to fight for protection of net neutrality.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

Nah - they're polar opposites. Comstock is for dismantling it, while Schumer's letter is stating he's for keeping it.

I guess, similar in that they're all form-letters.

Oops, I just skimmed the first line and figured it was a similar form letter

Yeah - while I like Comstock's stance on Metro and their union, her reply sours that.
And, FTR, railroads are VERY highly regulated - regulations up the wazoo, and attempts for railroads to increase prices to increase revenues have been shot down very often. (Re: many STB filings..) So here, her argument is.. extremely weak.

I thought so as well, I can't wait until her minions come knocking on my door like they do every so often.

I guess now that corporations are "people", Comstock is technically not lying.....even though she's lying.

I'm against ISPs penalizing traffic due to competitive reasons, but I think the 'pure' neutrality that many preach for is bad.

Banning paying for better access is a bad idea - it's forcing EVERYONE to the same generic level. That is not good.

The arguments about equal access at peering are dated arguments using convention from a different era. The free interchange conventions of the 90s no longer apply to the types of provider interchanges we see today. The old world was of long-haul carriers sharing for BOTH of their benefits. Now, we have pure intermediate carriers who ONLY peer and then sell their access to customers... then expect free access to other carriers for customers they are collecting from. That's not the same type of public exchange quid pro-pro of the old days.. yet they want to be treated the same.

Bandwidth scales well.. but bandwidth is not free. Trust me, I know.. because we are the ones who sell the gear that make that bandwidth possible.. and they don't get that for free

Carriers should also be able to block traffic that is against their Terms of Service. Handle the ToS arguments SEPARATE of the enforcement arguments.

SMDH...

No cable company has been given eminent domain.

Easements do not require you to own or claim the land. Easements are given by land owners or applied by governments. Land owners grant easements because they benefit from the outcome of having service.

Not good at all!!!

Does this change, as part of whats coming with it from the FCC, directly benefit Sinclair Broadcasting Acquisition
of Tribune, and a big "Reward" for the support from Murdoch and Fox?

*facepalm*
You are mixing and mashing to suit a message without any actual respect for facts or things as a whole.

When a company is given access for an easement, typically that means OTHER providers can also be given access to the utility easement. It depends on the land owner. It's why I have one utility easement, that has multiple carriers and utilities in it.

The issue about sharing lines is about lines or spaces that were subsidized or built out as part of a public service (like pole, exchanges, etc) and then later privatized. Not about build-outs that have happened in decades.

"We are letting them use land for free to set up their network" - this is a local negotiation that has nothing to do with neutrality. When a locality gives easements to company A... they can do the same for company B.

Where I live, I really have only 1 option for internet. Wireless DSL. The local cable company doesn't come down my section of the road. not enough houses. The local phone company couldn't even guarantee me anymore than 14.4K back in the 56k days. And they pretty much said they wouldn't be running any new lines.
The other issue I have, and this is somewhat separate from net neutrality is the big companies suing and trying to stop the local municipalities from offering high speed internet, because that interferes with them, and its government vs company and the company wins that argument. Companies are for their profits. I am all for net neutrality for most of the reasons cited within this thread. A lot of people have little to no choice when it comes to their ISP. And with all the consolidation of the major media groups, losing net neutrality would be a bad thing. I would love to believe if they got rid of it, congress would come up with a law that would basically ensure the same thing, but they can't agree on what day it is most of the time. Because they can't be seen by their base or media overlords, agreeing with the opposite party. I would love for the American people to really protest this, but most of them don't know what's at stake, and a lot of them have been conditioned to believe government bad. Or since their preferred source of news doesn't report on this, it isn't really a concern to them. Also since science and facts and are mostly ignored, I am losing hope.

The postal service doesn't block your mail because they don't like what you're getting. If you opt for a cheaper airfare, or rail, you still get to where you're going, even if the seat's uncomfortable. They don't slow the service until it's unusable.
Don't the ISP's have tiered services pertaining to speed? That's more of a comparison to the PS than what Comstock's talking about.
I feel for you guys.

Yet another line of BS because you are mixing and mashing ideas that result in no sense.

Internet providers do not have a monopoly on access. Even where cable companies are franchised, that does not prevent OTHER internet providers from putting down infrastructure. It doesn't happen often, because its expensive.. and your competition already has a head start when it's an established area.

The monopoly argument is about a provider that is already in place that has an effective monopoly on customers because no other provider is available at the moment. So the argument is used when it comes to how the provider treats its customers... and how their actions are impacting citizens. Not that they have a monopoly on being the only provider, or anything to do with access, easements, or eminent domain.

Response from Tim Kaine today. Virginia US Senator

Thank you for contacting me about net neutrality. I appreciate hearing your views about government and corporate control over the Internet.

Net neutrality refers to the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, or Time Warner Cable, should treat all data on the Internet equally. This includes general principles that owners of the networks should not block content or degrade network performance based on the type of user, content, site, application, or platform.

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Open Internet Order went into effect in June 2015. The order reclassifies ISPs as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This reclassification means that ISPs will be subject to regulations similar to those imposed on public utilities, such as phone companies. The rules forbid paid prioritization (also called internet fast lanes) that would have allowed ISPs and content providers (e.g. Netflix, Amazon) to pay to speed up delivery of streaming video or online gaming services. The order also prohibits ISPs from blocking websites, gives the FCC authority to intervene when large cable companies do not act in the public interest, and includes network management practices that prevent bandwidth throttling (the intentional slowing down of Internet service). In addition to wired lines, mobile data services for smartphones and tablets are subject to the rules.

The FCC will not, however, be involved on pricing or engineering decisions made by companies in managing their networks, wireless data caps will still be in effect, and broadband providers will not be required to increase network speeds. In June 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit announced a decision to uphold the FCC's rule.

Supporters of the FCC's ISP reclassification believe that paid prioritization would have favored better-financed companies that could have afforded to pay to use internet fast lanes, thus stifling innovation from smaller companies. Supporters also believe that the consolidation of internet providers and content providers will lead to discriminatory behaviors, such as favoring network-owned content and slowing downloads from certain websites, if left unchecked.

On January 23rd, 2017, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai assumed the chairmanship of the agency. Chairman Pai has announced his opposition to the Open Internet Order, citing concerns that net neutrality might slow companies' investment in broadband innovation and buildout in rural areas. On May 18th, 2017, the FCC voted 2-1 to reverse the internet's Title II reclassification of 2015 and effectively weaken the FCC's oversight of ISPs. The FCC will accept comments on the decision through the summer. In the meantime, the Open Internet Order remains in effect.

On July 12th, 2017, advocates for maintaining the Open Internet Order held a "Day of Action" to demonstrate the ramifications of reversing current net neutrality protections. Consumer advocacy groups and companies such as Amazon, Reddit, and Netflix participated.

Please be assured I will continue to monitor any changes to net neutrality. I will keep your views in mind should the Senate consider any legislation related net neutrality or any nominations to the current vacant commissioner seats at the FCC. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Signature

Tim Kaine

When your neighbor's torrents take down your OnDemand.. thank the blanket 'net neutrality' arguments
When you can't stream video w/o data limits... thank the blanket 'net neutrality' arguments

The problem is the blanket lumping of everything into one term. Prioritization is not a bad thing. Providers aligning for better service is not a bad thing. But both are not allowed under blanket 'everyone is equal' arguments.

Penalizing competitors is bad. Forcing everyone to be equal is not always good. Be careful what you wish for...

The point is you take half of one legit argument.. and use it completely wrong in another one. Lack of competition is a valid argument in the behavior of customer ISPs... which is about the argument of why they should be classified as common carriers... it has nothing to do with easements, access, or the ability of other providers to exist. Which is exactly why we do have alternate providers in many many markets.

Your statement was lazy, misleading, and factually incorrect.