[UPDATE] I Don't Believe in Net Neutrality

Level1Techs INBOX.deb
1

When you Think of Net Neutrality, What do you think about? 

all packets are created equal?

Are you absolutely sure that you know what Net Neutrality actually is or what you're really fighting for when you put on your tin foil hats and grab your pitchforks all the way to the FCC to enforce the coined policy?? Because We should ALL be well rounded and informed of the deeper meanings before we get up in arms about things that fill us with rage and make ill informed judgments. 

I don't believe in Net Neutrality


I'm gonna let that sink in for a minute.........

Now let me explain how the whole debate is all a bunch of glittery SH*T piles.

 

Let's take a small history lesson first for some background.

Where did Net Neutrality come from?

Let's go back to.....what was it.... 2004. 

What was the general public doing on the internet back then? People were trying to make Skype work. iTunes was becoming a thing. People wanted to download their 3MB songs quickly. People were still using IM and checking emails. Not a lot of data heavy applications were really being used so ISP's customers really didn't hammer their internet connections to the max..... unless you were using Bittorrent. 

Bittorrent was used to pirate Music, Movies, Games, etc. Some people used it A LOT more than others. And when these people used their connections to the fullest, and lets say there were 2 or 3 people in your neighborhood doing this at the same time, it slowed down everyone connected to the same node.

 

ISP's were selling packages that offered high speed and unlimited usage. They were basing this off of the fact of how the average daily user used their connection(which wasn't very data intensive. Remember, no Netflix and Youtube was still small at the time)Back then, if you tried to use Comcast at 6PM, is was slow as molasses. since everyone was getting home from work, kids are home, they want to get online and start fooling around. But if you used that same connection at noon, it was blazing fast.

Well, Comcast, back in 2004, pulled a fast one and was realizing that customers were taxing their connections, slowing down the neighborhood, and causing trouble on the network side. They started playing with the Bittorrent Protocol. WITHOUT TELLING THE CUSTOMER THEY WERE DOING IT. They didn't put on their big boy pants and actually go out and inform everyone what was going on, they were just sneaking sneaking around and dropping the SYN and ACK packets on the BT protocol to slow things down.

WE WANT NET NEUTRALITY! WE WANT EQUALITY!

sigh This is where everything goes to hell really.


Now lets put on our IT Admin pants and think about this. If you're managing a network. you need to be able to prioritize the connections. We are talking about Packets, not People.  You need to be able to give VOIP packets priority over FTP.  You need to make sure that there is Availability on your network.

OH NO! Prioritizing! >.>

It's more interesting what words are being used to convey the message of Net Neutrality.

"Internet Service providers are discriminating against packets."  You'll see the word discriminating a lot in any Net Neutrality topic. Here we are making certain packets sound like minority. We are giving people qualities to internet packets. And if you talk to any IT admin, there is just no room for equality in the network environment and you need to prioritize certain traffic over others in order for certain functionality. VOIP would not work if it wasn't high priority because it needs what's called low latency in order to function.

Then the FCC jumps in (2010)

Open internet rules.

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/open-internet

^lets follow along

Now Verizon challenged these open internet rules and went all the way to the supreme court. The ruling was that the FCC was trying to regulate them as if they were Title II Common Carriers. Which they are not. Companies like Telephone companies are Title II.

 

 Now the new rules will include that Companies will be able to pay for higher prioritization. Services like Netflix and Youtube

Lets take a look at the first paragraph of the FCC document.

Now the first thing THE FIRST thing you should realize is you're reading a government created document. They WILL use stupid words that seem like one thing but mean another under the covers.

The FCC is focused on ensuring that every American has access to open and robust high-speed Internet service - also known as broadband.

What does robust internet mean? What does "open internet" mean? This is the stuff that everyone should be scared of.

Lets look at the VERY NEXT SENTENCE.

The "Open Internet" is the Internet as we know it...

 Heres where shit hits the fan. This is what everyone is screaming about???? You guys are fighting for WHAT WE HAVE TODAY?

Did you know that the "Open Internet" is what we have today? Did you know that the Open Internet is the internet where services like Netflix can pay for higher prioritizations? And people are fighting to keep this alive?

This is called a Socratic argument. Where both parties are using the same words in a fight but they mean completely different things.

Here's the kicker. Look at the next point in the FCC doc.

What is 'Net Neutrality?'

Network, or "net," neutrality is just another way of referring to Open Internet principles.

LOOK THERE! It's exactly the same thing as the previously aforementioned  "Open Internet"

Think about that. When you're fighting for Network Neutrality, and the FCC is fighting for Network Neutrality...... Are you fighting for the same thing?


It gets worse.

Lets look at the the next point

 

1. Transparency: That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network.

This is a load of crap. Do you know exactly what Comcast is doing to your network? Do you know what Verizon or Time Warner is doing to your network? I sure as hell don't. 

3. No Unreasonable Discrimination: That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

What is Unreasonable? Transparency in what the rule really is that it's open for debate? Is this really what FCC is fighting for? Is this really what You're fighting for? Remember people. We don't have IT professionals in the FCC. We have Bureaucrats. They love to use words like this so that later down the line, somebody can take advantage of these transparent words that really, have no meaning.

 The FCC has published a 172 page pdf of the complete "open internet" ruling which I kind of skimmed along for an hour. I came across another point I'd like to share.

Later in the FCC article there was a talk about how "a network cannot favor affiliated services on their network" (can't remember the exact wording.)

More background info. "Peering agreements" between switches/routers connect networks like Level3 and Comcast together so packets can get from them, onto the Comcast network and head to it's destination. They (Comcast) are artificially creating a bottleneck by making sure those connection points do NOT have the max throughput that it's capable of.Think of a Level3 50 port switch and a Comcast 50 port switch connecting each other with only 10 ports filled with ethernet cables leaving 40 slots open and unused.  This is another issue.

 

Basically how Comcast allows you to stream its TV services over the internet and it will purposefully make sure that it's own network video stream has higher priority than Netflix video streams. The FCC open internet rule will not allow such prioritizations. You would look at that ruling and go "YEAH that'll show 'em. The FCC is doing something right! 

Not exactly. Here's where my last point comes into play. Remember those bottlenecked connections I was talking about? 

Netflix uses Level3 and Level3 connects to Comcast.

Once the Netflix stream gets ONTO the Comcast network, it'll go blazing fast........ but remember, it can only get so much onto the network at a time because of those peering agreements. 

See what's happening here? They are getting around that fcc ruling by making sure the slowdowns happen OUTSIDE of the network so they still get to slow down the connection while still abiding by the "open internet" rules.

This is why Net Neutrality isn't what you think it is and when you're fighting for it online and calling your congressmen and putting on your Warner Brothers mask that get $.50 royalties on so you can raise your fist in the name of this steaming pile of crap.

Be informed

And really, they should be reclassified and be done with it, or get rid of all those pesky little local laws about other ISPs entering a municipality and actually be allowed to present competition.

 

 EDIT: a couple typos and more info added

2

I am not an IT admin, and don't own any IT admin pants. What should I do? All I know is I get billed for my connection, never reach advertised speeds on any server I connect to, and still have to pay netflix and comcast to get some decent entertainment. I payed my money to comcast, paid my money to netflix. Comcast still wants money, and has received money from netflix. 

I don't understand shit about the internet. The higher prioritazation arguement doesn't make a whole lot of sense to an honest person such as myself. Can somebody possibly dumb down the arguement, or even include a metaphor for me?

Not that it matters. If prices jump up for internet I will be forced to drop it. Going hungry sucks. I am probably not the first to do it,but I have had to pay bills that I am legally obligated to pay (auto insurance, and of course I now have to pay for health insurance.)

My wages are stagnating and I am afraid to complain about it on the internet because my company looks for its employees posts on the internet. I don't even work for a goddamn tech company. In fact my company has a parent company like most companies in the U.S. today. 

I am afraid of this entire situation. I do not entirely understand it and if somebody makes the wrong decision I will no longer be able to afford a connection. I can barely afford it as it is sadly enough. 

We all need to take a step back and examine this because I know I will not be the only one who will get fucked over if this goes in favor of the corporations. 

Doesn't help that I recently learned what Comcast's CEO makes annually (which is tax deductible since salaries are a part of operating cost.) 

If it came down to it I can't even farm for a living. Fucking pathetic. I some how became something lower then a peasant in the dark ages. 

Be informed

I guess I gotta sort through this mire as best I can and cast my vote. Hopefully that still counts for something even though I don't have the money to sway my representatives.


 

3

I agree with you that this is the way things are, but what really matters is the way things should be.

Who gives a fuck what the FCC is fighting for? We aren't the FCC, and we don't have to fight for the same things. I understand that you are saying that there is a mass-misunderstanding in where the american people are rallying behind something that means something other than what they believe it to mean, and maybe that should be signal boosted; but if the FCC's net neutrality is deceitful or  misleading or what the fuck ever that doesn't mean we have to abandon the principle.

If the FCC's net neutrality doesn't jive with our net neutrality, then we make the impostor known to all. 

The political process in America has been bought out by corporations who want to bend us over and screw us in the ass, and even though it may not be easy, there IS a way to fight back. Money is the name of the game (sadly), and while many of us have little to none, there Are people on our side who do have the resources - the money, to lobby back for good. 

I don't pretend to have all the answers, or even a sizable piece of the knowledge, but I know what I stand for -  and I could have already told you that the FCC sure as hell wasn't reflecting it. While the constitution really means fuck-all to anyone in a position of political power, it still continues to float around in the collective psyche of the common folk. As long as passages like "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" are still visible, someone will find an answer.

It's no joke that our Government is destructive at many ends, but hell I wouldn't know how the hell to abolish an entity that gargantuan. My point is that, as long as passages like this exist however meaningless to their (secret?) opposition, someone will get an idea. Until then, fuck anyone who thinks we will go down without kicking and screaming like a bunch of toddlers throwing a fit in the mall. Maybe we'll overwhelm daddy by sheer numbers. Who knows?

4

This is a really good post and you bring some valid opinions to the theoretical table that we are at.

"Internet Service providers are discriminating against packets."  You'll see the word discriminating a lot in any Net Neutrality topic. Here we are making certain packets sound like minority. We are giving people qualities to internet packets. And if you talk to any IT admin, there is just no room for equality in the network environment and you need to prioritize certain traffic over others in order for certain functionality. VOIP would not work if it wasn't high priority because it needs what's called low latency in order to function.

This, I agree with fully. Net Neutrality does always make it sound bad. But as you state, we need to prioritise certain traffic. QoS has been a thing for along time and is always in use. However, this is prioritising traffic (for example) in an enterprise grade network. Where the only other people you are fighting for bandwidth, are the people within the company itself. Yea sure, prioritise the VoIP rather than the employee goffing off on facebook in his lunch hour.

But personally for me, when this hits a larger network (such as the lower ISP levels) although it should have priority (and technically it being the smaller packet also faster to process) should be allowed through ahead of say (again) facebook http connections. But in no way should it be able to fully block that other persons traffic. This is what happens if traffic is given too high a priority, things never get sent and dropped. So imagine now that your traffic is has a priority of 1 to 3 and so does your neighbour. Now say he pays for his traffic to be boosted by a priority of 1. So his traffic now ranges in priority of 2 to 4. 1/3 of your traffic might now totally be dropped and never reach its destination. With an ISP the key thing is that you are paying for bandwidth not priority of that bandwidth.

1. Transparency: That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network.

This is a load of crap. Do you know exactly what Comcast is doing to your network? Do you know what Verizon or Time Warner is doing to your network? I sure as hell don't. 

But, have you ever asked?

 

As I said before, you bring some good points to the table, I just wish I had more time to respond to the whole thing. I look forward to coming back later and reading the other posts.

5

I wonder if you would feel differently about this, if America had a much more capable, higher capacity infrastructure.

6

I find it really weird that the US ISPs are trying to block fiber. It doesn't make sense, if you invest in better infrastructure then you will have less need for throttling, better customer relations and therefore better customer retention. It's a no-brainer in the long term. Here in the UK they've been rolling it out across the country for a while now and the various ISPs are chomping at the bit to get us to sign up.

7

Various companies have shown time and time again that they don't care about the long term, they just want to make a quick buck.

8

Yep, we're not suffering from corporate inertia. Which is why the rest of the world is laughing at the anti-net neutrality lobby.

9

But, have you ever asked?


The point there is, we shouldn't have to ask. The ISP's are supposed to disclose this with it's customers upfront, if not, at least on their website. I've looked.

Plus, I'm not calling Comcast. I know what they do to everyone on the phones.


And @Berserker I know they have the capacity and (isp's) are artificially causing network slowdowns. But the point of the post I was trying to make is that we are wanting a different "baseline" of "open internet" than the FCC puts off.

 

There are many other points that I wanted to include in the OP but I know it was poorly written and my thoughts were all over the place. I'm no editor but I got the job done. There's the full pdf of the "open internet" that the FCC is proposing that is riddled with this nonsense, which I took an hour to skim across the document. I might add into it later tonight.

10

This is the primary problem- While a need to prioritize packets from an IT admin perspective is necessary because lets face it, somethings take up a lot of bandwidth, the fact that they are refusing outright not to expend and speed up their network (rather open up what's already there) to relieve this is issue is absurd and tantamount to what seems like abuse of the system. What have then done with all this money? Well we know they're not upgrading their infrastructure while the demand for more content everywhere grows.

11

I don't believe in it either. I find it to be cumbersome and a waste of time to make rules for every little thing the ISP decides they can legally do. The problem lies in the last mile. Once the ISP are no longer in complete control of it will we be free of their tyranny.

12

not just the last mile but in the "peering agreements" between switches/routers connecting networks like Level3 and Comcast. They are artificially creating a bottleneck by making sure those connection points do NOT have the max throughput that it's capable of. Think of a Level3 50 port switch and a Comcast 50 port switch connecting each other with only 10 ports filled with ethernet cables leaving 40 slots open and unused.  This is another issue.

Later in the FCC article there was a talk about how "a network cannot favor affiliated services on their network" (can't remember the exact wording. I'll add this in the OP later. )

Basically how Comcast allows you to stream its TV services over the internet and it will purposefully make sure that it's own network video stream has higher priority than Netflix video streams. The FCC open internet rule will not allow such prioritizations. You would look at that ruling and go "YEAH that'll show 'em. The FCC is doing something right! 

Not exactly. Here's where my last point comes into play. Remember those bottlenecked connections I was talking about? 

Netflix uses Level3 and Level3 connects to Comcast.

Once the Netflix stream gets ONTO the Comcast network, it'll go blazing fast........ but remember, it can only get so much onto the network at a time because of those peering agreements. 

See what's happening here? They are getting around that fcc ruling by making sure the slowdowns happen OUTSIDE of the network so they still get to slow down the connection while still abiding by the "open internet" rules.

13

Criticise the FCC as much as you want. They have both the anti and the pro-net neutrality lobbies second-guessing. We simply don't know what they mean by "open internet".

The main reason I am pro-NN, is because of my concerns over competition. ISPs are whining about a problem that they have caused, and now they are abusing their position in the chain of information.

14

(This post is mostly directed at the idea of a tiered Internet whitelist contrary to the "open Internet" design.)

The problem I have with any change is that the Internet is a series of links. There are so many links on the Internet that lead to so many different websites or (for the sake of the argument) server addresses that such a tier system would result in getting blocked every other step unless you had what I imagine to be the highest plan.

In essence, this plan would kill the Darknet and peer-to-peer networking and VPNs. We'd lose a whole lot of weblinks, and Google would be pointless since pretty much no-one could visit any of the websites anyways. Hypothetically, pirating would be squashed significantly too. Ads wouldn't work, most likely, thus content creators would not be able to make any money on the Internet without imposing their own premium. Small businesses and Internet businesses wouldn't last long, since very few people would be able to access their websites.

Some people would say that yes, some of what the whitelist gets rid of is very bad, thus this plan must be good. However, it sort of ruins the whole entrepreneurship of the Internet; any information on your business will have to be owned by some other company, unless you're big enough to buy yourself a high enough slot that people can actually access your website. This plan would actually cut jobs by at least half a million, I imagine, for all those website "designers" and developers who make their living doing business with other small businesses. As far as I can see, this plan doesn't really make up for it, either. Oh, and let's not forget all the game servers out there that people host at goodwill for communities and for their friends. This would pretty much ruin online gaming, and you'd better hope your tier includes the official server domains for whatever game you're playing.

Yeah, you'll probably get better speeds, but do you really think it's worth it? A service like Steam definitely wouldn't be first tier, and there's nothing for you to pirate anymore. Sure, there are other ways to find large files around on the Internet, but I'm sure it would feel like stepping in molasses anyways. Sticky sticky ISPs and their sticky sticky tiers.

15

This is my opinion for what it's worth:

 

ISP's used to be just that: "Internet Service Providers", in other words, "bandwidth dealers".

Some time ago, they decided that they wanted to sell other products, they started with phones, then they became content distributors.

"Net neutrality" is the hollow term that ISP's use to sell those other products in the form of something else, in this case super expensive bandwidth. That is a nifty trick, which they've learned from the likes of Apple (iTunes, the first artist exploitation money making program, you need to buy an expensive device and let Apple tattoo a bar code on your skull to listen to music), Amazon (the first really evil copyright exploitation platform, you need to get a cyborg chip implant in your skull to read books) and Google (YouTube/Twitch/etc..., the masters of evil copyright thieving content creator and consumer exploitation, you need to get a Google account and get completely Borg-assimilated by Google's Skynet to watch cat videos). You just sell something as "freedom on the Internet" instead of as what it really is, and you can divert all of the proceeds to the shareholders instead of to the people that - in any normal legal logic - would be entitled to the proceeds.

So when ISP's sell bandwidth, they should provide the consumer guarantees for that product category. That means that they should not be entitled to throttle below the advertised speed, and they should not be entitled to block or throttle certain data over other, because they just sell bulk data, to be used by the consumer ad libitem.

BUT, when an ISP sells media content or some other service, they should not be allowed to hide behind "net neutrality" to resell it as bandwidth, or even worse, as "potential bandwidth"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what happened in the first place, this is what has helped ISP's sell broadband internet: people only got broadband internet because they could get free media content because of it, and now that that route is completely blocked (torrenting being illegal in most countries, even streaming being unilaterally and without respect for non-US laws blocked by Google on things like Twitch streams), they are still selling media content that they stole from unpaid content creators, but are reselling it as bandwidth, and not only that, they're reselling is as "potential bandwidth", because they're making a lot of their customers pay extra for the use that only some customers actually make of their connections.

Now in reality, if you buy a book, you buy the intellectual work of the author, and it comes on paper. So should it be for media services: you buy the service, and it comes with the bandwidth needed to enjoy that service. Why should a consumer or a lawmaker have to worry about something as elementary as that?

Example:

After the EU decision to debunk "net neutrality", and define the real principles of consumer rights on the Internet (namely; when you sell data volumes, that's by definition "net neutral" because it's only up to the user to decide which data, and if you sell specific content services, those cannot impede any other products consumed by the user), this has lead to new products.

T-Mobile for instance now offers a "Spotify service" in Germany for mobile customers. This service costs 5 EUR per month, which is the exact same price as a "normal" Spotify Premium subscription directly from Spotify.

So what happens with this service, is that if a customer becomes a Spotify Premium customer through T-Mobile, all of the data volume involved in streaming music from Spotify, is not calculated in the data volume comprised in the mobile contract. Basically, the data usage from streaming music through Spotify Premium, is delivered for free.

That means that in many cases, people can actually save 15-30 EUR per month on their base subscription by subscribing to this service, by moving to a lower tier data volume contract or data pack, and get better quality music streaming and the ability to download music for offline use and access to the many titles that are greyed out in Spotify Free because of GEMA protests. That is a win-win situation for everyone: first of all for the consumers, second of all for T-Mobile, which is suddenly able to compete in lower cost level markets, and third of all for the content creators, which are getting paid the royalties they are entitled to if their songs are streamed through Spotify Premium, whereas this is not the case through Spotify Free, which only has some limited royalty payments based on the far lower advertising income from the Spotify Free app. Spotify has even agreed to adapt their app to add an "opt-out" setting for album cover pictures and suggestions, because those consume data that is calculated in the base data usage of the contracts, and it should be possible for a consumer to not pay for any mobile data at all, have a really cheap pre-paid SIM of less than 3 EUR/month, yet pay 5 EUR/month for the Spotify Premium service, and enjoy the full high speed music streaming experience.

This is very logical. It must be clear to everyone that it's wrong to let ISP's hide behind slogans like "net neutrality" to continue to sell valuable intellectual rights content as "potential bandwidth".

It's also clear that T-Mobile isn't providing media distribution services. ISP's have another business model. They are but a delivery service. Spotify is the distributor, and T-Mobile teams up with Spotify to basically do none other than provide a free delivery service, just like DHL in Germany delivers the Amazon Prime orders for free. It has nothing to do with "net neutrality". "Net neutrality" doesn't exist, will never exist, and has never existed, because it's impossible to achieve in the real world, and as the internet infrastructure necessarily has to become more complex and more technical, the principle of net neutrality - even in the minimal form of "bulk data delivery" contractual obligations, brings about big legal problems, and works really limiting to further upgrades of the Internet infrastructure.

It's just a matter of being clear about what product a vendor is selling. If he's selling a data volume at a certain speed, that's exactly what the customer should get, and it's up to the customer to decide on what data is sent through the connection, and the ISP should not be entitled to limit the nature or speed of that data. But it is not fair to make consumers pay for bandwidth that might be used by their neighbour, and that's exactly what's happening right now under the alibi of "net neutrality". If a customer wants to have a certain commercial content service, it should not be up to an ISP to limit or facilitate that customer's access to that service. It's the same thing as putting up a roadblock to prevent customers to go to a competitor's bakery. But it's not wrong to organize a bus shuttle service that brings customers from an airport to a hotel, it would be wrong to force the hotel that organizes the buss shuttle service to drop off customers to other hotels. So if ISP's invest in extra bandwidth to provide certain premium services where those are needed, but don't invest in extra bandwidth where those services are not needed, that's perfectly logical in my opinion, and the costs that are saved, should benefit the users that don't use that extra bandwidth.

I believe that the "magic of the Internet" will wear out very soon as newer generations gather buying power, generations that have grown up with the Internet and see it as a more generic commodity. Soon people will not agree to pay huge subscriptions fees for bulk potential data usage volumes any more, but they will only want to pay for specific services, and find it normal that those services either charge a fixed amount for the data that is used for the service, or that those services will be delivered without data charge. Because the Internet is just a distribution medium, it's like the paper and ink of the printing press, nothing more. As services become more mature and modern, basic Internet access will effectively become gratis (e.g. 2-4 mbit/s 200 GB/month to unlimited connection for every building with an individual house number, and 500 MB/month with every single SIM card), and different commercial distribution services will pay ISP's to deliver their services to customers at high speeds.

Spotify is the first modern service in my opinion. Google definitely wants to go for the Spotify model, they know that this is the future. In the future, YouTube will only be for free in reduced resolutions and with reduced content (blocked copyright protected content), whereas premium youtube subscribers will have to pay 5-10 EUR per month to have access to high resolution content and copyright protected content, but the bandwidth used in viewing that premium content, will be available for free, whatever the connection or the device. And that would be a good thing, IF Google is aligning with the legal rights of content providers and consumers, and learn to respect human rights and opens up to cultural/linguistic differences.

 

If the US public wants net neutrality so badly, then they should nationalize the complete communications infrastructure. That would be the same as only allowing state-owned public transportation services to shuttle hotel customers from the airport. That would be net neutrality from the perspective of the ISP and the end user.

On an intermediate level, the tier I level, net neutrality is also not a required principle. Freedom of competition is though! The problem now is that some tier I providers are in cahoots with last-mile providers and content distributors to limit competitive services in the US. That is not an FCC problem, it's not a problem of "net neutrality", but it's an anti-trust problem, it's a free market infringement, and it should be investigated by the DoJ for what it is, an anti-trust violation.

The problem with the FCC is that they've come to the conclusion that big mistakes have been made in the tax benefits to ISP's, and that everyone is now blaming the FCC for that, and that FCC pockets were effectively filled by ISP's to keep the situation as it grew. The FCC should be blamed for the right things here. Net neutrality is not the issue. Consumer rights, unfair business conduct and diverting money are enough problems already, and those are also the real problems that have to be solved. Just forget about the term "net neutrality" and other stupid bullshit that means nothing for a while, and open your eyes to the real elements of the puzzle!

16

About your first few statements. If an internet company can't supply what they're selling to you then they need to take a step into reality and cut their plans back to something more manageable. Not slow down other protocols and make other companies pay more so their customers can use their service.

17

They aren't selling you something they are not giving, You agree to all these terms in the T/C you sign for. the whole "up to" dealio. And the bandwidth management. but the general public only sees the top speed available and assume that's the guaranteed speed.And the prioritization, I'm sure that's in the fine print as well. Not the specifics like as to what protocols and services but the fact that they can prioritize traffic on your connection.

 

You're not being "lied to" per-say, you're just being misguided. That's how these companies are getting away with it.  Sure it's a grey area, and that's where the money comes into play for the FCC to turn the other cheek about it.

18

Great video and history lesson about the truth of Net Neutrality.  Should be shared with "everyone".  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4&feature=youtu.be