Net Neutrality!

[Hugo Rune]

OK then...

Because you like being gouged?

Because you don't believe in internet parity?

Because you have so much money you don't care?

Because you have interest in Comcast/Verizon or similar?

Because you just want to watch the world burn?

Because you're a badly rendered CGI character from some half remembered TV show?

Hugo - genuinely confused by any person not connected to the industry who wants to see this pass

 

[suarezguy]

Without net neutrality you'll pay extra for everything. You'll pay have to pay extra for streaming services and that does not include your subscribtion. You'll pay extra to use email, certain search engines, visit sites (possibly this one), access social media and everything else people do online.

I thought it would just be paying for streaming services (which use a lot more bandwidth than other sites) rather than all videos, including short ones like most on youtube, let alone also email, social media and search engines. The latter would be excessive profiteering by middlemen.

Because you like being gouged?

Because you don't believe in internet parity?

Because you have so much money you don't care?

I wouldn't necessarily mind paying and/or maybe even getting less content if what I did get was in better quality (especially not freezing and getting ads that cause freezing) although I admit I probably wouldn't pay, I do most value free even with problematic quality.

If you've been reading Ajit Pai, or any number of people invariably in thrall to the big telcos/cable cos, you have been lied to. They're telling people it's about political speech. That's a lie. They might say it's "stifling innovation" or "preventing infrastructure investment". Those are also lies.

Well it does seem to prevent and prohibit innovation in the sense of no developing optional fastlanes, I think it should be possible to develop faster speed for those who want to pay for it without making the basic service slower than it is now for everyone else.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I thought it would just be paying for streaming services (which use a lot more bandwidth than other sites) rather than all videos, including short ones like most on youtube, let alone also email, social media and search engines. The latter would be excessive profiteering by middlemen.

You shouldn't assume it would be "just" anything. It would be whatever ISPs want it to be. That's the whole problem. They get to choose--not you.

I wouldn't necessarily mind paying and/or maybe even getting less content if what I did get was in better quality (especially not freezing and getting ads that cause freezing) although I admit I probably wouldn't pay, I do most value free even with problematic quality.

What on Earth makes you think you'd get better quality? What makes you think there'd be fewer ads or something?

Well it does seem to prevent and prohibit innovation in the sense of no developing optional fastlanes, I think it should be possible to develop faster speed for those who want to pay for it without making the basic service slower than it is now for everyone else.

Except you are buying into a problem that doesn't exist.

A "lack of fastlanes" is not a real problem.

Let me repeat that: this is not a real problem.

It is a made-up problem telcos and ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. are pushing in order to kill net neutrality.

Why do they want to kill it? Because they hate competition.

This is the situation today: the companies offering broadband service have to compete on features, speed, and price. If they promise you a 50 megabit connection, that's what they have to give you. They don't get to say, "it's only 50 megabits for services where you don't need that kind of speed," it's "you get 50 megabits everywhere, up to whatever connection speed the content host has." That's net neutrality.

What do they want instead? They want to be able to say, "sure, you can have that 50 megabit connection, but it'll only be that fast for our services." You want to hit Netflix or Hulu? Either you don't get to at all, or it'll be an extra fee, or it'll be really slow. The ISPs will get to decide which it is, and there would be nothing stopping them from simply killing off their competitors by denying access altogether, or making it so slow as to be unusable.

"But they wouldn't do that!" you might say. "Customers would leave!"

To where? Verizon FiOS has a pathetic level of national penetration. Most everywhere else, cable is the most viable option, and almost everywhere in the US, one cable company has the monopoly. What are you going to do, sign up for satellite Internet (slower, with its own big drawbacks) or mobile Internet (again, slow, capped, expensive)? No, you will probably just stick with the shitty ISP that decided they don't want to let you use Netflix anymore because you don't have any better options.

That's the other piece of the puzzle those who think we don't need net neutrality are missing. ISPs are monopolies are nearly so in most areas. This was by design, to reward companies for investing in an area by letting them be the only game in town. They were allowed to build on public land and cut through private property. But this came with the caveat that they couldn't play favorites--if they're going to be a common carrier, they have to be a common carrier, meaning they don't favor their own content or disfavor others'. The end of net neutrality means a further concentration of monopoly power. Why would you (or anyone) favor that?

 

[Awesome Possum]

I thought it would just be paying for streaming services (which use a lot more bandwidth than other sites) rather than all videos, including short ones like most on youtube, let alone also email, social media and search engines. The latter would be excessive profiteering by middlemen.

Well that’s what happens when you give an industry complete control. They don’t care about you, they care about making money. They don’t want to give you better internet, they want to split it up and sell it to you piece by piece. If they approve of it of course.

 

[Timby]

Assuming ISPs to be rational actors is one of the more mind-boggling things I've seen on this board lately, and I read all the goddamn reports, for heaven's sake.

I'll put it another way, as I explained in a comment on the Ars article I linked to earlier: Did you know that, until June of this year, financial advisors were literally not bound by law to act as fiduciaries, which is to say act in the best interests of their clients? It's true, and it's one of the last great things the Obama Administration did, when its Department of Labor issued what is called the Fiduciary Rule back in April 2016. Part of that rule finally went into effect in June 2017, and that part requires advisors to act as fiduciaries (and requires broker/dealers to investigate and have upfront controls for every single transaction filed by one of their appointed advisors).

Before that, literally the only obligation advisors had was to disclose conflicts of interest, and that regulation was so broad that advisors basically only had to tell their clients if they had an actual, legitimate ownership stake in a mutual fund or stock. But if they had a high-commission deal with a particular mutual fund, even if that mutual fund was absolute junk and likely to crash? They didn't have to tell their clients shit. That's what the Department of Labor fixed (with the legal justification of tying it to ERISA-qualified retirement plans, which is why DOL got involved -- the SEC then raised holy hell, which is a whole other can of worms).

However, now the full implementation of the Fiduciary Rule, with enforcement mechanisms (or "compliance actions," as my employer generously terms them) has been delayed to July 2019 at the soonest, because Trump ordered the department to undertake a "full review" of the rule (translation: he wants it dismantled, and his picks for heads of the SEC and CFPB will see that it happens).

Corporations will do anything possible to grab every last scrap of incremental income, and consumers need protections, like net neutrality.

 

[STR]

Well it does seem to prevent and prohibit innovation in the sense of no developing optional fastlanes, I think it should be possible to develop faster speed for those who want to pay for it without making the basic service slower than it is now for everyone else.

Right, and protection rackets stifle the innovation of paying a hired goon to not beat one to a pulp. Think of all the ways you could be paying him to not beat you. I bet there's even an app that accepts Bitcoin! Innovation! (That isn't actually innovation.) You're paying an economic rent to someone who isn't adding value to your life, but you're stuck paying because there's a power imbalance in the relationship.

Assuming ISPs to be rational actors is one of the more mind-boggling things I've seen on this board lately, and I read all the goddamn reports, for heaven's sake.

Actually, ISPs are being rational actors. They've lucked into what are effectively local monopolies for a product in high and increasing demand. They know they have room to squeeze consumers, so they're using the current bought-and-paid party in power to loosen the few rules on internet pricing that exist.

The irrational ones are consumers who've been duped into thinking that being a victim of a scam is good for them. Those people are suckers. Unfortunately, the sucker vote counts as much as anyone else's vote, so we're all stuck with their mistake.

Corporations will do anything possible to grab every last scrap of incremental income, and consumers need protections, like net neutrality.

You know what? That's actually okay. Companies have fought for their interests since the Dutch East India Co. Countries have built successful systems to contain and balance that. It's sustainable.

The problem is that a large chunk of the rest of us are *not* fighting for *our* interests. Like, stop carrying water for Comcast or Exxon or Disney. They've got paid staff for that. If you're not being paid, you're just a tool.

 

[Random_Spock]

FCC Chairman: We don't need net neutrality, because ISPs will act in consumers' best interests.

God, Ajit Pai couldn't be a more obviously paid tool of the telcos if he tried.

Word. He gets on my nerves. Such a paid shill. And one that tries to spin, spin and spin. It's been amusing to see people point out his lies, time and time again via Twitter.

 

[suarezguy]

They want to be able to say, "sure, you can have that 50 megabit connection, but it'll only be that fast for our services." You want to hit Netflix or Hulu? Either you don't get to at all, or it'll be an extra fee, or it'll be really slow. The ISPs will get to decide which it is, and there would be nothing stopping them from simply killing off their competitors by denying access altogether, or making it so slow as to be unusable.

"But they wouldn't do that!" you might say. "Customers would leave!"

To where? Verizon FiOS has a pathetic level of national penetration. Most everywhere else, cable is the most viable option, and almost everywhere in the US, one cable company has the monopoly. What are you going to do, sign up for satellite Internet (slower, with its own big drawbacks) or mobile Internet (again, slow, capped, expensive)? No, you will probably just stick with the shitty ISP that decided they don't want to let you use Netflix anymore because you don't have any better options.

That's the other piece of the puzzle those who think we don't need net neutrality are missing. ISPs are monopolies are nearly so in most areas. This was by design, to reward companies for investing in an area by letting them be the only game in town. They were allowed to build on public land and cut through private property. But this came with the caveat that they couldn't play favorites--if they're going to be a common carrier, they have to be a common carrier, meaning they don't favor their own content or disfavor others'. The end of net neutrality means a further concentration of monopoly power.

Ideally and long-term there would be a lot more competition in service providing (although you would probably say that would be impractical so it should be prevented). But without that ending the common carrier requirement would indeed further limit competition which would be bad and overly unfair for both consumers and the companies trying to compete with their content.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Ideally and long-term there would be a lot more competition in service providing (although you would probably say that would be impractical so it should be prevented). But without that ending the common carrier requirement would indeed further limit competition which would be bad and overly unfair for both consumers and the companies trying to compete with their content.

I'm glad you agree.

 

[UncleRogi]

We finally have proof aliens are among us...

Anyone against Net Neutrality is pure Ferengi!!

 

[Random_Spock]

Just read through this thread by Alyssa Milano and she took Ajit Pai to task: https://twitter.com/Alyssa_Milano/status/935963607115767813

It's a very good read.

 

[Awesome Possum]

We finally have proof aliens are among us...

Anyone against Net Neutrality is pure Ferengi!!

Actually humans will support things that have a negative impact on them all the time. Mostly out of stupidity and believing any lie they’re told.

 

[Sgt_G]

I'm totally in favor of the concept of Net Neutrality. I'll be honest that I don't know much about how it all works, but I recall reading or hearing someplace a while back that the problem is, to enforce Net Neutrality, internet providers must be re-categorized as a utility, much like phone and power companies, which automatically introduces a crap-ton of mandatory end-user taxes and other regulations beyond basic Net Neutrality. Can anyone confirm if that's true? If it is, it sounds like one of those "be careful what you ask for" situations. If there's a way to enforce Net Neutrality without any bad side-effects, (i.e., that would require Congress to do their flipping jobs) then I'm all for it.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm totally in favor of the concept of Net Neutrality. I'll be honest that I don't know much about how it all works, but I recall reading or hearing someplace a while back that the problem is, to enforce Net Neutrality, internet providers must be re-categorized as a utility, much like phone and power companies, which automatically introduces a crap-ton of mandatory end-user taxes and other regulations beyond basic Net Neutrality. Can anyone confirm if that's true? If it is, it sounds like one of those "be careful what you ask for" situations. If there's a way to enforce Net Neutrality without any bad side-effects, (i.e., that would require Congress to do their flipping jobs) then I'm all for it.

The tax issue is false. How do we know? Because the FCC classified the Internet as a public utility under Title II back in 2015... and no taxes were established. While the power to levy taxes under Title II remains, the FCC would have to vote to use it (or Congress would have to require it), and that hasn't happened.

The FCC essentially enshrined the existing net neutrality status quo at the time in its regulatory rules. It didn't change anything happening at the time and didn't produce any new taxes. It simply made the existing net neutrality environment a federally-required condition.

I'll note that the taxes in question, like the Universal Service Fee, are in place to broaden access to such utilities. A lot of people in the US still lack good broadband access. Consider that essentially everywhere in the US has access to landline telephones. That didn't happen by accident or because AT&T felt charitable--it happened by making telephone service a public utility and collecting taxes to support rolling phone service out to areas where it wasn't necessarily profitable to do so.

The Internet is the phone service of our era--it is at least as important to personal and economic life today as landline phones were in the 20th century.

At this point, we should probably be less worried about taxes than ISPs jacking up rates and nickel-and-diming customers in a post-net-neutrality environment.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

At this point, we should probably be less worried about taxes than ISPs jacking up rates and nickel-and-diming customers in a post-net-neutrality environment.

Yep.

 

[Kor]

I've seen an argument that the government would basically be monitoring everybody's internet usage in order to verify ISP compliance with net neutrality rules. Does anyone have any insight on this?

Kor

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I've seen an argument that the government would basically be monitoring everybody's internet usage in order to verify ISP compliance with net neutrality rules. Does anyone have any insight on this?

Kor

They don't do that to enforce net neutrality now, so why would they have to do it in the future?

There are really two elements here. One is whether the government is or should be monitoring everyone's Internet access for any particular purpose. The fact of the matter is that the NSA already monitors everyone's online activities with impunity, for "national security" reasons. Forget monitoring ISPs to make sure they are staying neutral. The NSA is spying on everybody, all the time. This is a known fact, not even secret anymore.

The other is the nature of regulations like those employed by the FCC. Most such regulations are reactive rather than proactive--that is, the FCC doesn't do anything unless and until there is a public complaint or lawsuit. There have been such instances in the past where an ISP or telco has violated net neutrality rules and been sued over it. But it doesn't require any active monitoring by the government to enforce.

 

[Sgt_G]

I'll note that the taxes in question, like the Universal Service Fee, are in place to broaden access to such utilities.

Those are the fees enacted in the 1950's, sponsored by then-congressman Lyndon Johnson, to expand electrical power and later phone service to rural areas. It was, in the long run, a good thing. But now that everyone has phone/power out on the farms, why are we still paying these fees? Simply because government has never met a tax it didn't like. Again, I'm all for Net Neutrality. I'm just a little worried about how they go about making it happen.

A lot of people in the US still lack good broadband access.

Yes and no. I know people who live out on the farm, literally on a farm, and they do have high-speed internet. It's just not a hard-line cable. Some have dish for both TV and internet, while others have a small microwave receiver mounted on the house for internet, sent to them from a tower in town. Both use phone lines for up-load, so that speed sucks, but their down-load is as fast or even faster than my cable-modem can do.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Fun fact: Comcast actually does make money with Netflix. They're partnered up. Netflix prepared for this possibility.

 

[STR]

Those are the fees enacted in the 1950's, sponsored by then-congressman Lyndon Johnson, to expand electrical power and later phone service to rural areas. It was, in the long run, a good thing. But now that everyone has phone/power out on the farms, why are we still paying these fees? Simply because government has never met a tax it didn't like.

Right... its because of some trite truism and not because technology doesn't stand still. Poor and rural America, if they're going to be even remotely competitive in the 21st century, needs fixed broadband and high quality mobile networks and terminals.

That's what the USF funds and unless it's curtailed will continue to fund. Because there's always a new communication tech around the corner and some places will always be uneconomical based on opportunity costs alone.

Either pay the $3 quietly or tell flyover country that if they want internetz to move to the city.

I know people who live out on the farm, literally on a farm, and they do have high-speed internet. It's just not a hard-line cable. Some have dish for both TV and internet, while others have a small microwave receiver mounted on the house for internet, sent to them from a tower in town. Both use phone lines for up-load, so that speed sucks, but their down-load is as fast or even faster than my cable-modem can do.

The technologies you're talking about do not work the way you described. I've installed these types of systems. They are, by their nature, inherently inferior to wired networks, albeit cheaper to deploy. If your fixed modem is slower you have a s**t setup.