You know, if this does go through as it looks like it might, we might still have a way around it.
Now I haven't researched this, so this may be so much hot air and pipe dreams, but... hear me out.
My wife and I, we pay about $5 a month for all our landline long distance. (And if I ever get around to it, we could set up our cellphones similarly.) That's because we get it through a little outfit called ECG Boom. (Which, come to think of it, might have been recommended to us a couple years ago by someone here in the forums.) Anyway, this works because the big telecomms can and do sell capacity on their networks in bulk to smaller operators, who are free to resell it as they see fit. ECGB buys in bulk and resells it at a minimal markup to their customers, who basically get AT&T service at rock-bottom prices. From the point of view of the local telephone company, though, we're hooked directly to ECGBoom with no other carriers in between. And if I understand how the relationship works, the carrier who sells the capacity to ECGB pays no attention to the traffic using that capacity.
Now it seems to me that it should be possible to do much the same for digital traffic -- because, really, that's what all network traffic is these days. Set up an ISP company (maybe as a not-for-profit or non-profit), buy bandwidth in bulk and sell it to individuals. We'd have to make sure that bulk sales really are exempt from choking and slow-laning before this would be worth doing, but if that is indeed the case, then we can provide a low-cost, no-constriction net connection to individuals, the telecomm carrier(s) get their profit, and everyone is happy.
(12-01-2017, 08:36 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]You know, if this does go through as it looks like it might, we might still have a way around it. ... Set up an ISP company (maybe as a not-for-profit or non-profit), buy bandwidth in bulk and sell it to individuals. ...
Would you believe somebody's already done that in Canada? It's so successful that they don't even bother metering the bandwidth any more,
and they supply free service to social housing addresses (subsidized by the users who pay the discounted "full rate").
What? Yes, it
is the ISP that I use at home. Follow the link for more information - including contact information, for when you have questions that aren't answered on the website.
Well, then I can only conclude that the idea is eminently workable. I suppose it's time to start researching how one goes about being an ISP like that... and how to buy the bandwidth.
NCF is big on freedom of speech - I'm sure they'd be willing to help anybody set up a similar ISP if they're asked.
I was counting on it. <grin>
(12-01-2017, 08:36 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]You know, if this does go through as it looks like it might, we might still have a way around it.
Now I haven't researched this, so this may be so much hot air and pipe dreams, but... hear me out.
My wife and I, we pay about $5 a month for all our landline long distance. (And if I ever get around to it, we could set up our cellphones similarly.) That's because we get it through a little outfit called ECG Boom. (Which, come to think of it, might have been recommended to us a couple years ago by someone here in the forums.) Anyway, this works because the big telecomms can and do sell capacity on their networks in bulk to smaller operators, who are free to resell it as they see fit. ECGB buys in bulk and resells it at a minimal markup to their customers, who basically get AT&T service at rock-bottom prices. From the point of view of the local telephone company, though, we're hooked directly to ECGBoom with no other carriers in between. And if I understand how the relationship works, the carrier who sells the capacity to ECGB pays no attention to the traffic using that capacity.
Now it seems to me that it should be possible to do much the same for digital traffic -- because, really, that's what all network traffic is these days. Set up an ISP company (maybe as a not-for-profit or non-profit), buy bandwidth in bulk and sell it to individuals. We'd have to make sure that bulk sales really are exempt from choking and slow-laning before this would be worth doing, but if that is indeed the case, then we can provide a low-cost, no-constriction net connection to individuals, the telecomm carrier(s) get their profit, and everyone is happy.
Sound like a plan, but I have a concern. What if the company you are buying in bulk from decides to throttle your bandwidth so that they can get that market for themselves? Right now I think one of the things Mr. Pai wants is to restrict states and municipalities from forming their own ISPs to ensure that only the big companies are the only game in town. Could they do the same to others outside government? From what I have read, 'Free market' types don't like it when you use their own rules against them.
Yeaaahh. Riiight:
Comcast to customers: Just trust us about changed net neutrality pledges
Comcast deleted net neutrality pledge the same day FCC announced repeal
We are already seeing some effects of Mr. Pai's announcement:
Charter is using net neutrality repeal to fight lawsuit over slow speeds
Meanwhile on Reddit:
"This is my Senator. He sold me out to telecom lobbyists."
Smart customers to Comcast (if they have the option): We trust you about net neutrality. That's why we're looking for a different ISP.
I just had a thought...
If an ISP stops practicing net neutrality, does it still qualify as a common carrier?
Well, now. It seems
the Zombie Apocalypse is against Net Neutrality. Because at least one fellow found anti-neutrality comments recently posted by his mother and grandfather, who've been dead for some three-four years. He describes mom, in life, as a "liberal activist." It appears dying turned her into a corporate shill.
*****
I'm a very forgiving person ... on Lord Vader's terms. "Apology accepted, Captain."
How the Congressional Review Act (CRA) works, and how it can restore net neutrality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABCjxFt...e=youtu.be
From a public Facebook post by Harold Feld, VP at publicknowledge.org who's been on this fight since 2006 at least:
Quote:I, the Amazing Broadband Kreskin, will now predict the content of the upcoming Republican "Net Neutrality" Bill.
1. "The 4 Freedoms" can only be adjudicated by case-by-case enforcement action.
2. All other FCC authority over broadband eliminated.
3. States totally preempted.
And here is my blog post FROM 2006, explaining why this "deal" was utterly inadequate in 2006.
https://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-...formation/
This is what Republicans, with the nodding approval of industry, have offered every Goddamn time for the last 10 years.
But what irritates me is that no one ever asks "why should anyone take seriously an offer that was overwhelmingly rejected back in 2006, when the net neutrality community was much weaker politically and when the need to have FCC oversight of broadband as the critical communications platform of the 21st Century is even more obvious now than it was in 2006?" No, it's all "but why don't you negotiate?"
The reason people who actually care about net neutrality -- as well as redlining, privacy and every other element of consumer protection we traditionally care about with regard to our communications infrastructure -- keep rejecting this "negotiation" is precisely the same reason Mexico is not interested in "negotiating" how much it will pay for the wall.
And as predicted:
GOP net neutrality bill would allow paid fast lanes and preempt state laws
Quote:A Republican lawmaker is proposing a net neutrality law that would ban blocking and throttling, but the bill would allow ISPs to create paid fast lanes and prohibit state governments from enacting their own net neutrality laws. The bill would also prohibit the FCC from imposing any type of common carrier regulations on broadband providers.
'ban throttling' and 'allow paid fast lanes' appears to me to be a contradiction.
And that's just based on the description.
I'm not so sure it'll pass, it seems like it'd be one of those party line votes.
Then again, I think the Senate, at least, effectively has a 1 Senator lead on the Republicans side (due to John McCain's illness). Only 1 Republican Senator has to flip in this case...
I was just about to add a note that this is just the beginning, it has to do the whole bill process after all -- and will end up on Trump's desk for his signature and you can bet what might happen then.
But just as a comment -- polls over the last few weeks have shown that regardless of party affiliation, there's about 80% constituent support for Net Neutrality, and one of the goals here is (as an article I read earlier put it) to get those votes down on the record, so those constituents can be informed who voted for what they wanted, and who sided with the companies that want to gouge them. If this doesn't get far, it will at least have that fodder for November to work with.
Actually it doesn't have to do the whole bill process. It has to be approved by both houses, sure, but it's not a normal bill. The CRA basically allows Congress to reverse a new regulation within 6 months, thus reverting to the previous administrative rules. This is what the GOP did to reverse a lot of Obama rules. Because it can skip committee review, it will go to the President a lot faster.