All Things Net Neutrality
 

I actually couldn't believe no one had made a thread on this yet but I do believe it's easily the most important related issue since SOPA. I'll try to limit any personal commentary and try to use this initial post to provide a primer on what Net Neutrality is and why its important. [B]Obviously I am very pro Net Neutrality so my upcoming posts will reflect that[/B]. So with that out of the way lets begin.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with John Olivers recent rant that went Viral but if you're relatively new to the issue this is a pretty informative and entertaining place to start. ([COLOR="Blue"][I]Update: Tom Wheeler was asked directly about the John Oliver piece of which you can see the hilarious result on the right[/I][/COLOR]).
[YT]fpbOEoRrHyU[/YT][YT]hkjkQ-wCZ5A[/YT]

The video on the left provides a quick and simple explanation of the net neutrality issue with pretty pictures. The video on the right is just a little more of the same though slightly less 'fancy.'
[YT]wtt2aSV8wdw[/YT][YT]L11kLmWha6o[/YT]

Great website to find out more about net neutrality and easy ways to get involved: [url=http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home]Free Press[/url]

[B][U]Net Neutrality Timeline and Cliff Notes ([URL="http://whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline"]Link to Full More Detailed Timeline[/URL]):[/U][/B]
[COLOR="Navy"][I]- October 2002 -[/I][/COLOR] The FCC decided that instead of classifying ISP's as common carriers (ie regulating internet service as a utility) that they should be classified as Information Services hoping that in theory it would encourage investment, innovation, and increased competition.

[COLOR="navy"][I]- September 2007 -[/I][/COLOR] Comcast throttles bittorrent traffic under the guise of managing network congestion though it initially denies doing so. The FCC started investigating around January 2008 and in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC"]August 2008 ordered Comcast to stop throttling BitTorrent[/URL].

Obviously most people associate bittorrent with piracy but for people in the open source community it can easily offer download speeds 3 to 4 times faster than traditional web site based downloads.

[COLOR="navy"][I]- December 2010 -[/I][/COLOR] FCC Issues Open Internet Order effectively spelling out and enforcing net neutrality. The order still allowed 'reasonable network management' for mobile 3G/4G etc but effectively banned it from wired home internet. At the moment mobile net neutrality is also a point of interest.

[COLOR="navy"][I]- January 2011 -[/I][/COLOR] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communications_Commission_(2014)"]Verizon sues FCC[/URL] claiming the FCC had no right to issue the 2010 Open Internet Order.

[COLOR="navy"][I]- January 2014 -[/I][/COLOR] Court of Appeals rules in Verizons favor saying that with ISP's classified as Information Services the FCC cannot enforce the Open Internet Directive. Court vaguely suggest that reclassifying ISP's as a Title II Common Carrier would grant the FCC the authority to enforce Net Neutrality.

[I][COLOR="navy"]- May 2014 -[/COLOR][/I] [URL="http://www.thenation.com/article/179934/fccs-net-neutrality-proposal-explained"]FCC Chair Tom Wheeler offers initial proposal of new Open Internet rules[/URL] which allow for ISP's to charge for Fast Lane access. Proposal allows for transparency and absolutely forbids slowing down lawful content. Passes 3-2 vote among FCC chairs predictably among party lines. It is now open to public comment.

Critics cite the rules as to vague leaving plenty of room for ISP's to abuse the system and squeeze out competitors not to mention it effectively kills net neutrality.

- Optimist have cited that the proposal issued by FCC Chairman Wheeler is the more practical way to salvage net neutrality as its likely Title II reclassification would involve years of lawsuits from the ISP's. It's also said that reclassification would be a bait and switch in terms of regulatory costs. It's also been said since Wheeler, a former telecom lobbyist, is near the end of his career that he's more likely to stand firm in defense of the open internet since he wouldn't have to worry about upsetting potential future employers.

- Critics and Pessimists view Wheeler as a Telecom shrill and an extension of crony capitalism. Theres also been numerous outcries towards Obama's silence on the issue especially after making [URL="http://youtu.be/uVdSQzWg5og?t=35s"]Net Neutrality a key part of his election platform both in 2008 and 2010[/URL].

Theres obviously a lot more to it than this but hopefully this will give you an idea of the basics.

[B][U]Current Events:[/U][/B]
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/15/net-neutrality_n_5496505.html]The Net Neutrality Battle May Be Headed To Your Phone[/url]

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-lobbyist-dumping-net-neutrality-helps-blind-deaf-disabled-2014-6]Verizon Lobbyist: Dumping Net Neutrality Helps Blind, Deaf, Disabled - Business Insider[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

I think the only people who aren't in favor of net neutrality are the ones who stand to make more money once it's out of the way. It's a shame how much people are ignoring this issue, I've tried talking to friends and family about it as well as posting on FB and everyone just ignores it for the most part. So far Netflix has been leading the charge but if we are going to defeat this it's going to need an outcry similar to the one against SOPA.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1074054]I think the only people who aren't in favor of net neutrality are the ones who stand to make more money once it's out of the way. It's a shame how much people are ignoring this issue, I've tried talking to friends and family about it as well as posting on FB and everyone just ignores it for the most part. So far Netflix has been leading the charge but if we are going to defeat this it's going to need an outcry similar to the one against SOPA.[/quote]

Agreed, in fact I believe all medium to heavy internet users that are aware of it are strongly in favor. Light users and outright technologically challenged either don't care or have no idea what the hell it is.

In fact the only 'normal' people (read: non-industry, lobbying, or political figures) that I've seen against net neutrality were part of a group featuring a handful of Verizon employees including a lawyer that conveniently forgot to disclose their background.

[url=http://consumerist.com/2014/04/17/verizon-brings-fake-grassroots-campaign-to-new-jersey-to-claim-support-for-not-bringing-real-broadband/]Verizon Brings Fake Grassroots Campaign To New Jersey To Claim Support For Not Bringing Real Broadband – Consumerist[/url]

[url=http://www.vice.com/read/cables-companies-are-astroturfing-fake-consumer-support-to-end-net-neutrality]Cable Companies Are Astroturfing Fake Consumer Support to End Net Neutrality | VICE United States[/url]

[url=http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/warning-cable-corps-funding-pro-net-neutrality-campaigns/]WARNING: Cable Corps Funding Pro Net Neutrality Campaigns - Top US World News | Susanne Posel Daily Headlines and Research[/url]

[url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/verizon-led-massive-astroturf-campaign-to-end-nj-broadband-obligation/]Verizon led massive astroturf campaign to end NJ broadband obligation | Ars Technica[/url]

In fact I can't help but wonder if Verizon owes Comcast a huge favor. Somehow they've committed so many blunders this past year alone that Comcast looks like a model company in comparison.

[IMG]http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2014/06/netflix_verizon_buffer-100310691-large.jpg[/IMG]
Apply cold water to the burned area.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/netflix-slow-fcc-verizon_n_5492542.html]The U.S. Government Is Investigating Why Your Netflix Is So Slow[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

Good thread Dirtbag! I want to post more about this when I have a little time, but just wanted to comment that I'm also pro net neutrality! This is why I always go back to reminiscing about the good ol' days of the slow, yet more "deregulated" internet of the 1990's. The "Wild West of the World Wide Web". Back then, anything and everything you wanted to look up, you could find. No matter the search engine, no matter the ISP, you could still find whatever it was you were looking for.

This is a result of what happens when things get too commercial. Regulations are bound to happen, censoring is obvious, and if you want access to more information, you have to pay for it! Honestly, in some respects, I'd go back to the old 90's style internet on dial-up speed if it meant knowing that I could have access to information as I did back in the day. I miss having the internet act as more of a "library" of sorts than a shopping mall.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

I agree with the general statement in this thread. Net neutrality must be preserved and the free and open internet is critical to our economy and way of life. Currently ISPs are paid by consumers (you) to provide a service. They’ve started throttling traffic unless companies pay a ransom to the ISP as well to improve their connections. So the ISP’s are essentially double dipping to get money from both sides, the consumers and the companies.

I’m in support of the nuclear option, which is labeling ISPs as Title II common carriers. Declaring them Title II characters preserves net neutrality by ensuring they provide an equal level of service to all internet services. The FCC can ensure these companies aren’t giving priority to providers willing to pay. The internet is currently an incubator for innovation, when the internet becomes the haves and the have nots, we will lose that competition and innovation.

Ironically, I’ve seen arguments from the telecoms that labeling them as common carriers would stifle innovation. Please raise your hand if your ISP has been innovating lately. The only place I’ve seen ISPs push to increase their capabilities are areas that have provided actual competition via Google Fiber or a local ISP. Otherwise, they know you have no other options and there’s no incentive for them to provide upgrades. Their primary goal is to accumulate territory and protect it from other providers.

I live in a fairly populated area and have a grand total of one broadband provider. That is an issue. There is no competition and the internet, as I see it, is a necessity. The internet is no longer optional. It’s necessary. I would be happy to see a system reminiscent of the telephone companies of yester year. Have service providers outfit a home with the necessary infrastructure based on territory. From there, the consumer can use that infrastructure to purchase whichever ISP service they desire. The ISP then leases the connection from the owner based on a pre-arranged standard fee per user. This reduces redundant infrastructure and gives consumers real competition.

I’m greatly concerned with censorship of the internet. Censorship is a slippery slope, and banning anything makes me nervous. Please keep in mind, I still support legal repercussions of the actions/contents on the internet, but do not support the banning of anything on the internet. There are some terrible and disgusting items on the internet, but believe banning them undermines the ideals of a free and open internet.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[url=http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/technology/security/comcast-wifi-hotspot/]Comcast is turning your home router into a public Wi-Fi hotspot - Jun. 16, 2014[/url]

I saw this story a couple days ago but just kind of thought of it as another way for Comcast to just continue being douche bags and not much further then that. Then I saw [URL="http://youtu.be/z0rNdbPyaPM?t=13m23s"]this video which made a very good point[/URL].

A little background. For those that missed it, Comcast has been claiming that they [URL="http://consumerist.com/2013/11/08/dear-atlanta-comcast-now-hates-you-too"]need to eventually enstate soft data caps nationwide[/URL] to manage network congestion, even though its [URL="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml"]since been proven that its complete BS[/URL]. Of course this is a "deal" for customers since [URL="http://youtu.be/J1uk4iO1LoE"]now they won't hit you with a year long banhammer for going over their cap.[/URL]

Of course now they're having peoples with newer models of their home routers, that they require customers to lease even if they have their own, to serve as public Wi-Fi hotspots for other Comcast customers. The feature is enabled by default so its up to the customer to call Comcast to find out how to disable it.

Also Comcast claims that the Public Wi-Fi is on a separate network and won't affect the speeds of their customers.

So let me F*****G get this straight. You guys already overcharge me for internet access and provide me speeds much slower then the rest of the developed world in spite of me being in a major market (ie I'm most definitely not rural). Then you have me pay extra for going over 300GB and a fee to lease your router even though I have my own. Not to mention that somehow since you enacted the data caps my internet has been more prone to disconnecting and buffering then the year and a half you completely did away with caps to "collect data."

Then on top of that you need Netflix to pay you because they're clogging up your network, cost which they pass on to me, but you have more then enough bandwidth to set up a couple million public hot spots and it will be provided by the same device that I send my personal information like Credit Cards, SS numbers, etc?

[URL="http://youtu.be/9CtFEYdyYP4?t=1m2s"]FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/URL]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=skinsguy;1074109]Good thread Dirtbag! I want to post more about this when I have a little time, but just wanted to comment that I'm also pro net neutrality! This is why I always go back to reminiscing about the good ol' days of the slow, yet more "deregulated" internet of the 1990's. The "Wild West of the World Wide Web". Back then, anything and everything you wanted to look up, you could find. No matter the search engine, no matter the ISP, you could still find whatever it was you were looking for.

This is a result of what happens when things get too commercial. Regulations are bound to happen, censoring is obvious, and if you want access to more information, you have to pay for it! Honestly, in some respects, I'd go back to the old 90's style internet on dial-up speed if it meant knowing that I could have access to information as I did back in the day. I miss having the internet act as more of a "library" of sorts than a shopping mall.[/quote]

Honestly in terms of regulations I believe they are usually a last resort and if possible its better we make due without them, but things have gotten so bad that well...

([I]Joey addresses US ISP's directly[/I])
[YT]Pgp33-EVqXk[/YT]

And it's not like the US broadband industry has a Google (Fiber is only in 3 cities), Amazon, Steam, or Netflix where even though they're not always perfect virtually everything they do usually results in a better product or service for the customer. The cable industry somehow makes their products worse and then finds ways to charge more for them.

Net Neutrality won't fix the lack of competition but thats not the point of net neutrality. The point is to provide a fail safe so when the industry becomes the Oligopoly it is today we don't get screwed any further by companies that are taking advantage of us already.

As for fixing the competition problem, Tom Wheeler, of all people actually spelled out the solution a couple days ago.

[quote]If the people, acting through their elected local governments, want to pursue competitive community broadband, they shouldn't be stopped by state laws promoted by cable and telephone companies that don't want that competition.
-Tom Wheeler [/quote]

Which kind of echos the sentiment written in this article last year.
[url=http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/]Don’t Blame Big Cable. It’s Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition | Opinion | WIRED[/url]

As for giving the government more power over the internet, well all I have to say is this. Going back to the Comcast bittorrent scandal the FCC could have easily ignored it and said that P2P filesharing just enables piracy and Comcast is well within its write to 'manage it.' Instead the FCC sided with BitTorrent. That incident alone is enough to make me trust the FCC to do whats best for the internet rather then hoping that the "free market' that ISP's 'compete' within will keep them in line. By the way if there actually was free market competition in broadband Comcast and friends wouldn't even try a fraction of the things they're trying now.

@Daseal - The funniest thing about ISP's staring down the gun of the Title II barrell is that the whole reason its even on the table was that Verizon (and friends) wanted to squeeze a couple more nickles out of everyone and they couldn't handle the 2010 FCC order. If they had just STFU and went along with it the initiative would have virtually zero public support.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;1074146][URL="http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/technology/security/comcast-wifi-hotspot/"]Comcast is turning your home router into a public Wi-Fi hotspot - Jun. 16, 2014[/URL]

I saw this story a couple days ago but just kind of thought of it as another way for Comcast to just continue being douche bags and not much further then that. Then I saw [URL="http://youtu.be/z0rNdbPyaPM?t=13m23s"]this video which made a very good point[/URL].

A little background. For those that missed it, Comcast has been claiming that they [URL="http://consumerist.com/2013/11/08/dear-atlanta-comcast-now-hates-you-too"]need to eventually enstate soft data caps nationwide[/URL] to manage network congestion, even though its [URL="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml"]since been proven that its complete BS[/URL]. Of course this is a "deal" for customers since [URL="http://youtu.be/J1uk4iO1LoE"]now they won't hit you with a year long banhammer for going over their cap.[/URL]

Of course now they're having peoples with newer models of their home routers, that they require customers to lease even if they have their own, to serve as public Wi-Fi hotspots for other Comcast customers. The feature is enabled by default so its up to the customer to call Comcast to find out how to disable it.

Also Comcast claims that the Public Wi-Fi is on a separate network and won't affect the speeds of their customers.

So let me F*****G get this straight. You guys already overcharge me for internet access and provide me speeds much slower then the rest of the developed world in spite of me being in a major market (ie I'm most definitely not rural). Then you have me pay extra for going over 300GB and a fee to lease your router even though I have my own. Not to mention that somehow since you enacted the data caps my internet has been more prone to disconnecting and buffering then the year and a half you completely did away with caps to "collect data."

Then on top of that you need Netflix to pay you because they're clogging up your network, cost which they pass on to me, but you have more then enough bandwidth to set up a couple million public hot spots and it will be provided by the same device that I send my personal information like Credit Cards, SS numbers, etc?

[URL="http://youtu.be/9CtFEYdyYP4?t=1m2s"]FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/URL][/quote]

We were just talking about this at work yesterday. I don't believe Comcast when they say it won't effect your internet speed. That can't be true. The more internet connections you have on the node that is feeding internet to your neighborhood, the more likely it will effect internet speed. That's just the nature of having cable internet - it's all shared. If that wasn't true, then the 25 mbps download speeds I pay for would be 25 down at all times - yet on average I get about 13 mbps download speeds. What happens when someone logs onto the hotspot being served on your router, and they happen to be doing something illegal? Who gets in trouble?

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

And in my opinion, ISPs instituting data caps is just another way to get around net neutrality. Knowing that you're up against a data cap, you're not likely to watch Netflix or You Tube videos, or stream music from your favorite website. It would naturally limit you on your usage. And what burns me up is that these ISPs, like AT&T, will dangle the carrot of offering you gigabit speeds, but then turn around and slap a data cap on you. Come on...the biggest reason why people would purchase gigabit service is to better support services such as Skype, Netflix, and faster download speeds of large files. If I know I have a data limit that is realistically reachable within a month, I know I can't freely use the internet the way it was intended.

I'm currently with Time Warner (which, of course, got bought out by Comcast) and I looked at my data usage just the other day. My wife and I have been streaming a lot more since we reinstated Netflix. Therefore, my data usage shot up almost triple from what we were using beforehand. From what I saw, it looks like there is a "soft" data cap with Time Warner, but the cap is set high enough where you'd have to be downloading HD movies (or torrents) on a daily basis while streaming Netflix on a daily basis. We don't really do a lot of major downloading of anything (unless I'm downloading a TV show from iTunes or Linux Distros), but we do use Netflix and Amazon Prime Video on a regular basis. While gigabit speeds are enticing for me for streaming as well as upload speeds (if I decide to Skype), not if there is a strict data cap like what you get with cell phone companies.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Daseal;1074120]I agree with the general statement in this thread. Net neutrality must be preserved and the free and open internet is critical to our economy and way of life. Currently ISPs are paid by consumers (you) to provide a service. They’ve started throttling traffic unless companies pay a ransom to the ISP as well to improve their connections. So the ISP’s are essentially double dipping to get money from both sides, the consumers and the companies.

I’m in support of the nuclear option, which is labeling ISPs as Title II common carriers. Declaring them Title II characters preserves net neutrality by ensuring they provide an equal level of service to all internet services. The FCC can ensure these companies aren’t giving priority to providers willing to pay. The internet is currently an incubator for innovation, when the internet becomes the haves and the have nots, we will lose that competition and innovation.

Ironically, I’ve seen arguments from the telecoms that labeling them as common carriers would stifle innovation. Please raise your hand if your ISP has been innovating lately. The only place I’ve seen ISPs push to increase their capabilities are areas that have provided actual competition via Google Fiber or a local ISP. Otherwise, they know you have no other options and there’s no incentive for them to provide upgrades. Their primary goal is to accumulate territory and protect it from other providers.

I live in a fairly populated area and have a grand total of one broadband provider. That is an issue. There is no competition and the internet, as I see it, is a necessity. The internet is no longer optional. It’s necessary. I would be happy to see a system reminiscent of the telephone companies of yester year. Have service providers outfit a home with the necessary infrastructure based on territory. From there, the consumer can use that infrastructure to purchase whichever ISP service they desire. The ISP then leases the connection from the owner based on a pre-arranged standard fee per user. This reduces redundant infrastructure and gives consumers real competition.

I’m greatly concerned with censorship of the internet. Censorship is a slippery slope, and banning anything makes me nervous. Please keep in mind, I still support legal repercussions of the actions/contents on the internet, but do not support the banning of anything on the internet. There are some terrible and disgusting items on the internet, but believe banning them undermines the ideals of a free and open internet.[/quote]

Strong taek dude. I'm pretty much in agreement with most of your statement. It's a shame that companies aren't smart enough to realize that their greed will contribute to the downfall of a major component of today's society. I can only hope that our gov't is smart enough to recognize that a free and equal internet is essential in today's society, but that might be asking too much if they're all in Comcast/Verizon's back pockets.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=mooby;1074185]Strong taek dude. I'm pretty much in agreement with most of your statement. It's a shame that companies aren't smart enough to realize that their greed will contribute to the downfall of a major component of today's society. I can only hope that our gov't is smart enough to recognize that a free and equal internet is essential in today's society, but that might be asking too much if they're all in Comcast/Verizon's back pockets.[/quote]

What shocked me is how LITTLE it took to buy the politicians. I believe Ars Technica did a write up of the congressmen who signed the letter to the FCC asking for no regulation. The donations were pretty damn low all things considered (some as low as 10K.)

I want to clarify. I understand net neutrality doesn't directly lead to censorship, but it does lay the groundwork. It's going to start with companies (Comcast) making Hulu the primary option and pushing netflix out. That will slowly devolve into the outright blocking of sites deemed dangerous or offensive. Some will be legitimate (think child porn), but that opens the gate for special interest groups to push their ideals. If we start blocking we're not too far from being China and allowing the filtering of information critical of the gov, etc.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;1074146][url=http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/16/technology/security/comcast-wifi-hotspot/]Comcast is turning your home router into a public Wi-Fi hotspot - Jun. 16, 2014[/url]

I saw this story a couple days ago but just kind of thought of it as another way for Comcast to just continue being douche bags and not much further then that. Then I saw [URL="http://youtu.be/z0rNdbPyaPM?t=13m23s"]this video which made a very good point[/URL].

A little background. For those that missed it, Comcast has been claiming that they [URL="http://consumerist.com/2013/11/08/dear-atlanta-comcast-now-hates-you-too"]need to eventually enstate soft data caps nationwide[/URL] to manage network congestion, even though its [URL="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/17425221736/cable-industry-finally-admits-that-data-caps-have-nothing-to-do-with-congestion.shtml"]since been proven that its complete BS[/URL]. Of course this is a "deal" for customers since [URL="http://youtu.be/J1uk4iO1LoE"]now they won't hit you with a year long banhammer for going over their cap.[/URL]

Of course now they're having peoples with newer models of their home routers, that they require customers to lease even if they have their own, to serve as public Wi-Fi hotspots for other Comcast customers. The feature is enabled by default so its up to the customer to call Comcast to find out how to disable it.

Also Comcast claims that the Public Wi-Fi is on a separate network and won't affect the speeds of their customers.

So let me F*****G get this straight. You guys already overcharge me for internet access and provide me speeds much slower then the rest of the developed world in spite of me being in a major market (ie I'm most definitely not rural). Then you have me pay extra for going over 300GB and a fee to lease your router even though I have my own. Not to mention that somehow since you enacted the data caps my internet has been more prone to disconnecting and buffering then the year and a half you completely did away with caps to "collect data."

Then on top of that you need Netflix to pay you because they're clogging up your network, cost which they pass on to me,[B] but you have more then enough bandwidth to set up a couple million public hot spots and it will be provided by the same device that I send my personal information like Credit Cards, SS numbers, etc? [/B]
[URL="http://youtu.be/9CtFEYdyYP4?t=1m2s"]FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU[/URL][/quote]

Guys im a novice when it comes to computers in general, but is my security at risk by this hotspot thing? Im a comcast wifi customer, and got a letter in the spring about this...i def dont want some crazy person doing all types of pervy or illegal things using my house as a hotspot.

Thanks for any info...there is an "opt out" option?

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074197]Guys im a novice when it comes to computers in general, but is my security at risk by this hotspot thing? Im a comcast wifi customer, and got a letter in the spring about this...i def dont want some crazy person doing all types of pervy or illegal things using my house as a hotspot.

Thanks for any info...there is an "opt out" option?[/quote]

This , and I haven't got a word from them at all .All we have is Comcast and Fios in Charles county and everyone I know is bitching about the fios ,down loads are slow and pictures are breaking up .Now this crap with the router is that one of their routers or on anyone ?

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074197]Guys im a novice when it comes to computers in general, but is my security at risk by this hotspot thing? Im a comcast wifi customer, and got a letter in the spring about this...i def dont want some crazy person doing all types of pervy or illegal things using my house as a hotspot.

Thanks for any info...there is an "opt out" option?[/quote]

I'll type more on this later but I'm under the impression that unless your router is this model or newer it will be a non issue.
[IMG]http://rocketdock.com/images/screenshots/XfinitySMCD3GNV-Wireless-Gateway-V.2.png[/IMG]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;1074286]I'll type more on this later but I'm under the impression that unless your router is this model or newer it will be a non issue.
[IMG]http://rocketdock.com/images/screenshots/XfinitySMCD3GNV-Wireless-Gateway-V.2.png[/IMG][/quote]

It's that one

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074288]It's that one[/quote]

Umm yeahhhhhhhhhh
[YT]Oq-p0ysCF6E[/YT]
#EveryManForHimself!

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074288]It's that one[/quote]

All right I'm hoping this does the trick.

[url=http://bgr.com/2014/06/11/how-to-disable-comcast-xfinity-wi-fi-hotspot/]How to Disable Comcast Xfinity Wi-Fi Hotspot | BGR[/url]

1. Log into your Comcast account page at customer.comcast.com.
2. Click on Users & Preferences.
3. Look for a heading on the page for “Service Address.” Below your address, click the link that reads “Manage Xfinity WiFi.”
4. Click the button for “Disable Xfinity Wifi Home Hotspot.”
5. Click Save

Hope being the optimal word because I also found this.

[url=http://forums.comcast.com/t5/Home-Networking-Router-WiFi/Disabling-the-new-public-wifi-from-my-router/td-p/1886203]Disabling the new public wifi from my router. - Comcast Help and Support Forums[/url]

[quote]Has ANYONE been able to get the public wifi disabled from your router. On the Email comcast sent it said to disable go to the website or call 1-800-wedontcare and be routed to India 3 hours later and no help. I was even called for their survey while I was still on hold with them! Got to love the "customer guarantee" I hung up after 2 hours and 11 minutes. I guess calling the FCC or Attorney General is an option. Has anyone been successful with this?
[/quote]

Comcast still curious why more people don't support their efforts to acquire Time Warner and undermine Net Neutrality.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Chico23231;1074197]Guys im a novice when it comes to computers in general, but is my security at risk by this hotspot thing? Im a comcast wifi customer, and got a letter in the spring about this...i def dont want some crazy person doing all types of pervy or illegal things using my house as a hotspot.

Thanks for any info...there is an "opt out" option?[/quote]

Even if there's not an inherent security risk, which I highly doubt, there's certainly a massive risk of social engineering. I saw an article about a gentleman that uses a mifi pineapple to immitate a comcast hotspot. He makes a page that looks exactly like their splash screen, only he logs their credentials for use later. Pretty interesting read.
[url=http://blog.logrhythm.com/security/xfinity-pineapple/]xfinity pineapple | the dialog[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Daseal;1074349]Even if there's not an inherent security risk, which I highly doubt, there's certainly a massive risk of social engineering. I saw an article about a gentleman that uses a mifi pineapple to immitate a comcast hotspot. He makes a page that looks exactly like their splash screen, only he logs their credentials for use later. Pretty interesting read.
[url=http://blog.logrhythm.com/security/xfinity-pineapple/]xfinity pineapple | the dialog[/url][/quote]

Im putting this on my things to do list this weekend, eliminate my public hotspot portal. Thanks Dirt and Daseal.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

My failed attempt at humor but I can't be the only one who has thought of a joke to this effect.
[IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D22R8iyZsBI/U6TUPC5s8rI/AAAAAAAAAS4/0tegPx-aEk0/w490-h301-no/9q2jm.jpg[/IMG]

Q: Whats that from?
A: [URL="http://youtu.be/zxgNqNLKCms?t=49s"]MY BRAIN![/URL]

Update: Horay someone shares my sick sense of humor.

[QUOTE][B]Ellis Winningham ‏@elliswinningham Feb 24[/B]
If corporations are people, how does the .@GOP know that the merger between Comcast and Time Warner isn't really a gay marriage? #SB1062[/QUOTE]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

My Meme writing career continues. In the meantime does anyone know where I can get a better template for the Alignment Meme. Keep in mind this is a very rough draft.

[IMG]https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-1KvAB4xD_Ew/U6tu9oBNFwI/AAAAAAAAAVc/bU6itZwEqSg/w824-h642-no/Character_Alignment_Chart_by_ChopSilverBlood+%25281%2529.jpg[/IMG]
[B][U]Top Row:[/U]

[/B][B]Tim Wu[/B]: 'The implications of Net Neutrality reaches beyond even its economic impact.' [COLOR="Blue"](Lawful Good)[/COLOR]

[B]Google[/B]: Technically we support Net Neutrality but we really should be putting in more effort to protect it. [COLOR="blue"](Neutral Good)[/COLOR]

[B]Reed Hastings [Netflix CEO][/B]: 'the verizon network is crowded right now.' [COLOR="blue"](Chaotic Good)[/COLOR]

[B][U]Middle Row[/U][/B]

[B]Supreme Court[/B]: 'The FCC under the current circumstances doesn't have the authority to enforce Net Neutrality...however if they were to reclassify ISP's.....' [COLOR="blue"](Lawful Neutral)[/COLOR]

[B]Net Neutrality[/B]: 'The treasure is buried in the.....' [COLOR="blue"](Neutral)[/COLOR]

[B]Tom Wheeler [FCC][/B]: "If the proposal before us now turns out to be insufficient or if we observe anyone taking advantage of the rule, I won’t hesitate to use Title II." [COLOR="blue"](Chaotic Neutral)[/COLOR]

[B][I]Bottom Row[/I][/B]

[B]Harry Reid [aka Shy Ronnie][/B]: 'Well I totally said something supporting Net Neutrality in the past but I think right now the important thing is to talk about the 80 year old name of a [URL="http://youtu.be/vlmGknvr_Pg?t=5m29s"]rascilist[/URL] football team.' [COLOR="Blue"](Lawful Evil)[/COLOR]

[B]Brian Roberts [Comcast CEO][/B]: 'Well technically the conditions of our parole, I mean merger, with NBC requires we honor Net Neutrality until 2018.' [COLOR="blue"](Neutral Evil)[/COLOR]

[B]Verizon[/B]: 'Sue sue sue lawsuit lawsuit lawsuit lobby lobby lobby bribe bribe bribe sue sue lobby bribe lawsuit lawsuit sue lobby.' [COLOR="blue"](Chaotic evil)
[/COLOR]
Note: The picture used is not of the current Verizon CEO but like I said this is a rough draft.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;1074286]I'll type more on this later but I'm under the impression that unless your router is this model or newer it will be a non issue.
[IMG]http://rocketdock.com/images/screenshots/XfinitySMCD3GNV-Wireless-Gateway-V.2.png[/IMG][/quote]


They just put this one in my house yesterday, is this good or bad ?

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Giantone;1074830]They just put this one in my house yesterday, is this good or bad ?[/quote]

Bad but you should be able to disable it from your comcast account page

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/fcc-republican-says-net-neutrality-rules-too-onerous-for-isps/]FCC Republican says net neutrality rules too “onerous� for ISPs | Ars Technica[/url]

There is not enough Valium in the world.

[QUOTE]There should be no rules until there's "evidence of an actual problem."[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53766f7a6bb3f7d73494e4f7/what-happened-when-netflix-paid-for-direct-access-to-comcast.jpg[/IMG]

[url=http://www.savetheinternet.com/att-facetime]AT&T Blocking FaceTime | Free Press[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_throttling#Comcast_Corp._v._FCC]Bandwidth throttling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
[QUOTE]In 2007, Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the Federal Communications Commission filed a complaint against Comcast’s Internet service. Several subscribers claimed that the company was interfering with their use of peer-to-peer networking applications. The Commission stated that it had jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management practices and that it could resolve the dispute through negotiation rather than through rulemaking. The Commission believed that Comcast had “significantly impeded consumers’ ability to access the content and use the applications of their choice”, and that because Comcast “ha[d] several available options it could use to manage network traffic without discriminating” against peer-to-peer communications, its method of bandwidth management “contravene[d]...federal policy”. At this time, “Comcast had already agreed to adopt a new system for managing bandwidth demand, the Commission simply ordered it to make a set of disclosures describing the details of its new approach and the company’s progress toward implementing it”. Comcast complied with this Order but petitioned for a review and presented several objections.[7]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]“Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs.”
-Mitt Romney during 2012 Presidential Election[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that allowing a handful of ISP's to charge for "fast lane" read 'normal speed' access is going to be great for tech start ups.

Remember today is the last day to submit a formal comment with the FCC
 

[url=http://www.fcc.gov/comments]Send Us Your Comments | FCC.gov[/url] - Proceeding# 14-28 is for Net Neutrality

Also:
[url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/2453760/internet-companies-press-for-net-neutrality-in-fcc-filing.html]Internet giants press for net neutrality in FCC filing | PCWorld[/url]
[quote]An association of more than two dozen technology companies including Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Netflix urged the Federal Communications Commission on Monday to create strong, enforceable net neutrality rules for wired and mobile networks[/quote]

All I have to say in regards to the likes of Google and Facebook showing up on Capital Hill is........
[YT]sipTtQ_5q8k[/YT]
...oh and pushups on my knuckles.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/15/todays-the-biggest-day-for-net-neutrality-in-months-heres-whats-at-stake/]Today’s the biggest day for net neutrality in months. Here’s what’s at stake. - The Washington Post[/url]
[QUOTE]On the other side, members of the telecom industry are arguing to the FCC that new net neutrality rules are not necessary. They and others say that the Internet's done pretty well in the absence of net neutrality regulations so far — [B]and that in fact, adding new regulations would discourage investment in new broadband infrastructure, thereby slowing down the Internet for everyone[/B][/QUOTE]

This argument from ISP's is easily among the ones that piss me off more than anything. Mainly because its the telecoms themselves that have done their part to make sure investment is stifled both by refusing to upgrade infrastructure and even preventing local municipalities from using their own fiber networks.

This should piss off a lot of you based in the DMV area.

[url=http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused]Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With Fiber—But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused | Motherboard[/url]
[QUOTE]In Washington DC, for instance, the country's first 100 Gbps fiber network has been available to nonprofit organizations since 2006—but not to any of the city's residents. During a re-negotiation with Comcast in 1999 in which the company threatened to cut off cable service to the city, Comcast agreed to provide some of its fiber access to the city for the government's "exclusive use." [/QUOTE]

Here's a more recent story where Comcast's number 2 guy David Cohen was grilled on municipal broadband basically in part because one of the more open secrets out there is that Telecom companies have either prevented municipal broadband from being built or allowing it to be used by residents.
[url=http://consumerist.com/2014/07/16/senator-challenges-comcast-att-execs-on-opposition-to-municipal-broadband/]Senator Challenges Comcast, AT&T Execs On Opposition To Municipal Broadband – Consumerist[/url]

Also just another anecdote that pisses me off about this whole thing is the blatant conflicts of interest that have arisen.

For example in 2011 this story on John Boehner was released
[url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/01/gop-leader-john-boehner-vows-to-eliminate-net-neutrality/]GOP leader John Boehner vows to eliminate ‘net neutrality’[/url]

Republicans even tried to use eliminating Net Neutrality as a [URL="http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/26/house-republicans-want-to-kill-net-neutrality-as-part-of-their-debt-ceiling-bill/"]bargaining chip to raise the debt ceiling[/URL].

Boehncer owns stock in [URL="http://maplight.org/us-congress/personal-financial-disclosure/search?StockCompanyOrSource=&searchOpt=2&PoliticianName[0]=John%20A.%20Boehner&YearCovered=All"]Comcast and AT&T[/URL] so if ISP's were allowed to charge for fast lane access in theory the value of these stocks would increase.

On top of that two of Boehners biggest donors are Comcast and AT&T.
[url=http://maplight.org/us-congress/legislator/155-john-a-boehner]John A. Boehner (R-OH) U.S. House | MapLight - Money and Politics[/url]

As upset as I am at the [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/06/04/why-liberals-are-singling-out-harry-reid-over-net-neutrality/"]disinterest among key Democrats[/URL] in being more vocal towards support of Net Neutrality and Open Internet policies its clear that the GOP is a more direct threat.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

To the people that side with the ISP's saying they need the ability to throttle services as they see fit because their network is so overused... i'll just drop this off here for you to mule over:
[url=http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/]Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa | Beyond Bandwidth[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=tshile;1075721]To the people that side with the ISP's saying they need the ability to throttle services as they see fit because their network is so overused... i'll just drop this off here for you to mule over:
[url=http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/]Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa | Beyond Bandwidth[/url][/quote]

Man, and I thought I was digging deep. Excellent find.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

THE PAINNNNNNNNNNNN! PLEASE STOP!!! MY head IT HuRTZZZZZZ!!!

[url=http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/congresswoman-defends-states-rights-to-protect-isps-from-muni-competition/]Congresswoman defends “states’ rights� to protect ISPs from muni competition | Ars Technica[/url]

[QUOTE]US Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) wants to make sure the Federal Communications Commission never interferes with "states' rights" to protect private Internet service providers from having to compete against municipal broadband networks.[/QUOTE]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;1075739]THE PAINNNNNNNNNNNN! PLEASE STOP!!! MY head IT HuRTZZZZZZ!!!

[url=http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/congresswoman-defends-states-rights-to-protect-isps-from-muni-competition/]Congresswoman defends “states’ rights� to protect ISPs from muni competition | Ars Technica[/url][/quote]

Yeah, this was brutal. Doesn't that go against the free market? We need one of two things to happen in the cable and internet markets. Either regulate the current solutions to protect consumers to guarantee certain levels of service at certain prices, or find a way to inject true competition. The problem with internet/cable providers is that most people have 1-2 legitimate options, more often than not a single option. I know in the Northern VA area the apartment/condo complexes will sign exclusivity agreements with the cable providers.

The really interesting part is look at the cable providers in areas that Google Fiber moved in. Google is able to come in and push the big boys because of deep pockets, most new internet providers don't have that ability. Every city they've moved into the current providers IMMEDIATELY offered faster/better service at a lower price. Showed they clearly have the capability, they just don't have any incentive. The United States is slowly desolving into the luddites of the 1st world. We need infrastructure, we need information, and we need to lower the barrier to entry. We're not a free market anymore, we're protecting these massive companies and their profits rather than forcing them to innovate to stay on top.

You know what, I think I might start treating myself as an ISP. I'm a government contractor. I'm going to start demanding direct payment from the government as well as my company. I think it'll go great!

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

According to Layer 3 communications, this problem could be helped by just plugging in some more cables. Nearly no cost to either side (we're talking cents) to which Verizon isn't giving them permission. Interesting...

[url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/18/netflix_partner_verizons_report_proves_they_throttle_us/]Oh girl, you jus' didn't: Level 3 slaps Verizon in Netflix throttle blowup • The Register[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=Daseal;1075797]Yeah, this was brutal. Doesn't that go against the free market? We need one of two things to happen in the cable and internet markets. Either regulate the current solutions to protect consumers to guarantee certain levels of service at certain prices, or find a way to inject true competition. The problem with internet/cable providers is that most people have 1-2 legitimate options, more often than not a single option. I know in the Northern VA area the apartment/condo complexes will sign exclusivity agreements with the cable providers.

The really interesting part is look at the cable providers in areas that Google Fiber moved in. Google is able to come in and push the big boys because of deep pockets, most new internet providers don't have that ability. Every city they've moved into the current providers IMMEDIATELY offered faster/better service at a lower price. Showed they clearly have the capability, they just don't have any incentive. The United States is slowly desolving into the luddites of the 1st world. We need infrastructure, we need information, and we need to lower the barrier to entry. We're not a free market anymore, we're protecting these massive companies and their profits rather than forcing them to innovate to stay on top.

You know what, I think I might start treating myself as an ISP. I'm a government contractor. I'm going to start demanding direct payment from the government as well as my company. I think it'll go great![/quote]

Couldn't agree more. In fact when I think about it so many on the right are quick to call anything they don't like Socialism but in it's simplest form what is socialism? Basically a product or service in which people are limited to one provider.

It sucks that they refuse to see the lack of high speed competition in regards to broadband on the local level and even when they do, they count non feasible high speed options such as mobile provider hot spots with extremely low data caps, outdated DSL, and satellite internet which also comes with ridiculously low data caps not to mention terrible ping times.

I apologize if for this thread I sound like a card carrying Dem, but in regards to all things technology I've learned that Dems can at least be shamed into taking the right position. Republicans on the other hand are outright dangerous in regards to internet policy. As seen with this recent vote where they have prevented cities with currently existing fiber networks from competing with Cable providers. Which is tragically comedic to me because you would think with their confidence in the free market they would be eager to see a government service go head to head with a private company.

If you consider one of the main complaints the GOP has about Obamacare is they didn't have a say in the bill. Well guess what, we have another issue now that needs to be addressed, and yet they continue to pretend, just as they did with health care that there isn't a problem. You don't need to go all the way with Title II but they certainly shouldn't be actively working to block solutions that are in line with free market policies, ie increasing competition.

I will say this though, Comcast certainly knows when to hold them and when to fold them unlike a similar company...say Verizon?
[url=http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/comcast-loves-the-fccs-net-neutrality-rules-wants-limits-on-fast-lanes/]Comcast loves the FCC’s net neutrality rules, wants limits on “fast lanes� | Ars Technica[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

I'd think twice before believing Comcast is out for anyone's best interest other than their own. ;)

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

[quote=tshile;1075816]I'd think twice before believing Comcast is out for anyone's best interest other than their own. ;)[/quote]

Oh trust me I know that all to well. In fact if I had to rank the top 5 National ISP's (Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Cox, Verizon) I'd easily rank Comcast as the most evil. Officially Verizon is still 'reviewing' the initial FCC proposal unless I missed something since their [URL="http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/05-15-statement-on-fcc-proposed-rules-for-open-internet/"]initial press release[/URL]. To me it seems Verizon wants go all in on killing net neutrality while Comcast seems to be more along the lines of 'quit while you're ahead.'

In other words Comcast seems to realize that attempting to completely do away with net neutrality and hoping for the Republican Net Neutrality plan, aka '[I]hopefully you can afford antitrust litigation[/I]', is a fools game. By voicing their support for the FCC proposal they seemed to have realized that this is the most realistic way to turn the fast lane into a reality (read; get paid). I also imagine that it allows them to stay on regulators good side both in regards to their NBC merger and their upcoming Time Warner Merger.

Not to mention they at least get to seem like they support the open internet. Though knowing Comcast if they thought they could get away with killing both net neutrality and the open internet they wouldn't hesitate.

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

Verizon still f'ing up.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/07/verizon-made-an-enemy-fios-customer-mad-that-netflix-works-better-on-vpn/]Verizon made an enemy: FiOS customer mad that Netflix works better on VPN | Ars Technica[/url]
[QUOTE][I]I'm on FiOS and also have to use a VPN to get acceptable streaming quality (a big pain since although my desktop is hooked up to my TV, I'd rather use the Netflix app on TV). I tried complaining to Verizon about this, and broke my usual rule about "play dumb with tech support and just let them think I'm technologically inept" and said I was using a VPN and everything...and they kept trying to upsell me to the 75/35 tier that this guy is on. When I'm already on 50/25. Because 50/25 clearly isn't enough to watch Netflix at a quality above that of a 1990s-era Quicktime video.[/I][/QUOTE]

[YT]5vs3QhEx_3w[/YT]

For those that aren't familiar with VPN's here's a quick explanation. Say we have Verizon for our home ISP and at work we have XYZ-ISP. Using a VPN (Virtual Private Network) we can connect to our XYZ-ISP network from home with our Verizon Internet but obviously we won't be getting nearly the speed as if we were actually at work. Anyone that's seen lag when IT remotely accesses your desktop should have an idea. 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 using a VPN to increase speeds will not work. It pretty much violates [URL="http://youtu.be/0jZ-ZqOq44s?t=3m"]Newmans laws of psychics[/URL].

In other news count AT&T among the ones that know whats good for them.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-usa-internet-neutrality-idUSKBN0FN23720140718]With 1 million comments, U.S. net neutrality debate nears first marker | Reuters[/url]
[QUOTE]AT&T, though, said the FCC could ban paid prioritization without reclassifying ISPs. It is unclear how the approach would stand up in court. Verizon and Comcast supported the "commercially reasonable" standard.
[/QUOTE]

Of course there's also this fun story.
[url=http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/att-supports-a-fast-lane-ban-as-long-as-it-has-a-giant-loophole/]AT&T supports a fast lane� ban as long as it contains a giant loophole | Ars Technica[/url]

I Stand With Verizon
 

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]In support of Verizon I have created my own custom Fios logo.
[/FONT][url=http://time.com/2973850/verizon-netflix-fight/]Verizon: Slow Buffering Speeds Are Netflix's Fault - TIME[/url]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Before:[/FONT]
[IMG]https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/0M7n3rIYhCM73AoCn2ZQxDUiE9_tP6YX4W4SWCbhMIc=w352-h147-p-no[/IMG]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]After:[/FONT]
[IMG]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zjvR0MS3Ao4/U8yOxMRIiqI/AAAAAAAAA0E/GGR5O3fu20w/w338-h104-no/Finally+2.png[/IMG]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Don't lie down against the evil empire known as Netflix. You got to fight for your rites....yeah!

If you are willing to stand with me then please post the After image in every post throughout the forum and use Comic Sans font to show Netflix you won't let them bully helpless companies trying to make a living! Remember, use [URL="http://www.troll.me/images/x-all-the-things/comic-sans-all-the-things.jpg"]Comic Sans font[/URL] to let them know [URL="http://youtu.be/9LI8fqHXMm4?t=7s"]we are deadly serious![/URL][/FONT]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

So , we just bought a new TV for the Mrs in her sew/knitting room ..42 in Insignia HD very nice ok my daughter bought her a Ruko box so she can get nexflicks , has anyone ever had any trouble setting that up ?My internet is, fine speed is good ,I do have Comcast .

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

Heh.

[url=http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/comcasts_worst_nightmare_how_tennessee_could_save_americas_internet_partner/]Comcast’s worst nightmare: How Tennessee could save America’s Internet - Salon.com[/url]

This is why you cannot say that capitalism, or the private sector, is the answer for everything. When your bottom line is profit motivated you can find yourself in a situation where what's best for your company, is what's worse for everyone else.

This is also why everyone should scoff when AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, or anyone else suggests that these changes would hamper their ability to continue to bring high speed internet to as many people as possible.

Because if that was their interest they'd stop suing small municipalities for providing a better service for cheaper.

They just want to make more money. That's all this is about. I wish people would figure that out. They've literally decided that spending millions in lobbying and buying votes to outlaw competition would net them more money than trying to compete with them.

It'd be one thing if we had the best internet int he world, but we don't. In fact.. we're significantly worse off than other areas from a price-to-performance perspective. And when you factor in the numerous attempts to officially instate a 'Shutoff Switch', in addition to what the US Gov't is already doing, the idea that our internet access is less 'controlled' by Gov't forces than others is starting to become a fantasy..

We're paying top dollar for a lesser product. This is becoming a theme in this country...

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

to piggy back off that post...

[url=http://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks/]Municipal Broadband Roadblocks | Broadband Now[/url]

Re: All Things Net Neutrality
 

Lol, Comcast.

[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/07/15/331681041/comcast-embarrassed-by-the-service-call-making-internet-rounds]Comcast 'Embarrassed' By The Service Call Making Internet Rounds : All Tech Considered : NPR[/url]
[QUOTE]"The representative (name redacted) continued aggressively repeating his questions, despite the answers given, to the point where my wife became so visibly upset she handed me the phone. ...
"This recording picks up roughly 10 minutes into the call, whereby she and I have already played along and given a myriad of reasons and explanations as to why we are canceling (which is why I simply stopped answering the rep's repeated question — it was clear the only sufficient answer was 'Okay, please don't disconnect our service after all')."[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/07/16/comcast_customer_service_an_employee_explains_why_they_won_t_let_you_cancel.html]Comcast customer service: An employee explains why they won't let you cancel your service.[/url]
[QUOTE]When you call in to disconnect, you get routed to the Retention department; their job is to try to keep you. The guy on the phone is a Retention Specialist (which is just a Customer Account Executive who takes primarily calls from people disconnecting their service).

If I was reviewing this guy's calls I'd agree that this is an example of going a little too hard at it, but here's the deal (and this is not saying they're doing the right thing, this is just how it works). First of all these guys have a low hourly rate. In the states I've worked in they start at about 10.50-12$/hr. The actual money that they make comes from their metrics for the month, which depends on the department they're in. In sales this is obvious: the more sales you make the better you do.

In retention, the more products you save per customer the better you do, and the more products you disconnect the worst you do (if a customer with a triple play disconnects, you get hit as losing every one of those lines of business, not just losing one customer). These guys fight tooth and nail to keep every customer because if they don't meet their numbers they don't get paid.

Comcast uses "gates" for their incentive pay, which means that if you fall below a certain threshold (which tend to be stretch goals in the first place) then instead of getting a reduced amount, you get 0$. Let's say that if you retain 85% of your customers or more (this means 85% of the lines of businesses that customers have when they talk to you, they still have after they talk to you), you get 100% of your payout—which might be 5-10$ per line of business. At 80% you might only get 75% of your payout, and at 75% you get nothing.

The CAEs (customer service reps) watch these numbers daily, and will fight tooth and nail to stay above the "I get nothing" number. This guy went too far; you're not supposed to flat out argue with them. But Comcast literally provides an incentive for this kind of behavior. It's the same reason people's bills are always fucked up: people stuffing them with things they don't need or in some cases don't even agree to.
[/QUOTE]