Goodbye Net Neutrality

Page 2 of 5<12345>
May 18th, 2017 at 5:35:53 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 102
Posts: 6644
Quote: JB
No, NN ensures that customers have equal access to the BMW website and the Chevy website, with neither being favored over the other.

The cable companies are monopolies. You can't move into a new house and choose between Cox, Comcast, or Charter. You get one choice, thus no choice.

Now these monopolies are being given the green light to tell BMW that they'll drop or throttle their traffic unless BMW pays the ISP $xxx,xxx,xxx. This is extortion. You can say "BMW has the right to pay for better service" all you want, but it's extortion. And it doesn't stop there: since they're a monopoly, they can tell the same thing to Chevy, and Mercedes, and Ford, and so on. And they can do this to competing companies across multiple industries, making their victims think they're gaining an advantage over their competition, when in reality, they'll just be paying exorbitant amounts of money for the same access that NN ensures we have today.

That is an abuse of a monopolistic position from companies who are "above" the currently free market.


No, NN is not a free market. It is making internet a utility. And it ensures that there is less chance that someone will lay fiber to compete with the Cox/Comcasts of the world. To like NN is to like the Bell System pre-1983, when you had zero choice. We had higher prices and worse service back then.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 18th, 2017 at 5:50:46 PM permalink
JB
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 10
Posts: 96
Quote: AZDuffman
No, NN is not a free market. It is making internet a utility. And it ensures that there is less chance that someone will lay fiber to compete with the Cox/Comcasts of the world. To like NN is to like the Bell System pre-1983, when you had zero choice. We had higher prices and worse service back then.

That might be the difference in our view: to me, the internet is a utility. An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.

If you want to compare NN to the telephone system, NN is like saying that whatever phone number you dial will be connected to immediately. Without NN, some phone numbers will be "preferred" and will be connected to ASAP, while all others will be artificially delayed or simply dropped. Naturally, the phone numbers which will be connected right away will be to companies that Bell squeezed money out of because "we sure wouldn't want your phone not to ring when someone calls you".
May 18th, 2017 at 6:18:21 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 12
Posts: 2026
Quote: JB
That might be the difference in our view: to me, the internet is a utility. An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.

If you want to compare NN to the telephone system, NN is like saying that whatever phone number you dial will be connected to immediately. Without NN, some phone numbers will be "preferred" and will be connected to ASAP, while all others will be artificially delayed or simply dropped. Naturally, the phone numbers which will be connected right away will be to companies that Bell squeezed money out of because "we sure wouldn't want your phone not to ring when someone calls you".
Don't countries like S. Korea already have blazing fast internet compared to the US? We taxpayers paid to develop the internet through the DOD, I want it to be a utility without without choke points, where friends can exact tolls.

It's like trying to drive a Humvee through skinny French streets, you may get there but you won't have any mirrors left. keeping with the analogy
Everyone gets thrown from the plane to maintain altitude
May 18th, 2017 at 6:29:19 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 102
Posts: 6644
Quote: JB
That might be the difference in our view: to me, the internet is a utility. An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.

If you want to compare NN to the telephone system, NN is like saying that whatever phone number you dial will be connected to immediately. Without NN, some phone numbers will be "preferred" and will be connected to ASAP, while all others will be artificially delayed or simply dropped. Naturally, the phone numbers which will be connected right away will be to companies that Bell squeezed money out of because "we sure wouldn't want your phone not to ring when someone calls you".


You have and will keep having access to the internet, all of it. But bandwidth hogs should be allowed to pay for better service. "Where it is headed" is for Netflix and a few others to be able to crash the system as they keep growing. NN would be like if everyone paid the same flat rate for electricity or water. Now the aluminum smelter and brewery would use more of both, but the utility would not be able to charge more.

I have actually given NN much thought over the years. In the end I looked at who was pushing it and who was not. I looked at the motives of those parties in multiple matters. The people pushing NN love to regulate, the ones against are not as crazy about regulating. I will take the risk in favor of the potential benefits.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
May 18th, 2017 at 6:30:08 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5136
Quote: AZDuffman
And it ensures that there is less chance that someone will lay fiber to compete with the Cox/Comcasts of the world. .


So why would Cox, Comcast and AT&T want to destroy their own goldmine? They're not stupid.


Quote:
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and media outlets have been citing the work of The Free State Foundation (FSF) to argue against current net neutrality rules. But media have failed to note that the foundation is heavily backed by the telecommunications industry, which has lobbied against the 2015 open internet rules put in place by former President Barack Obama’s administration.

Net neutrality, as explained by the nonprofit group Free Press, is “the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use.”

Corporations and Republicans like Pai have been trying to dismantle those rules since President Donald Trump’s election. Pai delivered an April 26 speech detailing his desire to do that and tried to justify his plans by saying of the Communications Act title related to net neutrality: “According to one estimate by the nonprofit Free State Foundation, Title II has already cost our country $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment.”

Gizmodo staff writer Libby Watson, who previously wrote for the Sunlight Foundation and Media Matters, noted that Pai’s cost argument is bogus, writing that a Free Press analysis found that internet service providers' "capital expenditure increased more after net neutrality was passed than in the two years before it." She added that “ISPs themselves happily boast of investments when they’re not whining to regulators.”
FSF has been pushing pro-telecom research while receiving nearly half a million dollars from telecommunications trade associations in recent years.

CTIA, a group that represents “the U.S. wireless communications industry” and counts AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless as members, issued a statement praising Pai’s recent remarks. The group’s IRS 990 forms state that it gave FSF $63,750 in 2014 (the most recent year available), $58,750 in 2013, and $75,000 in 2012.

NCTA - The Internet Television Association, whose members include Charter Communications, Comcast Corp., and Cox Communications, gave the FSF $105,000 in 2014, $100,000 in 2013, and $85,000 in 2012. The group also praised Pai’s remarks.

A statement on the FSF website acknowledges that it receives contributions from “a wide variety of companies in the communications, information services, entertainment, and high-tech marketplaces, among others, as well as from foundations and many individuals.” In an email to Media Matters, a foundation spokesperson said, “All of our support is general support with none earmarked for net neutrality or any other designated project or issue.”

Following Pai’s speech, outlets such as the Washington Examiner and Daily Caller quoted FSF’s president, Randolph May, praising the FCC chairperson without noting the foundation's telecom backing.

This has become a familiar pattern since Trump’s election. Outlets such as USA Today (repeatedly), The Hill, and Bloomberg have quoted May praising Trump’s plans to curtail net neutrality. And The Washington Times and The Hill have published opinion pieces by FSF employees arguing against regulation on the telecom industry without disclosing the group’s funding sources.

Pai, who formerly worked as a lawyer at Verizon, will speak at FSF’s Ninth Annual Telecom Policy Conference on May 31. Other speakers include executives from AT&T, Comcast, and CTIA. Pai also spoke at the group’s 10th anniversary luncheon last December and praised the group for being “a key voice fighting against the FCC’s regulatory overreach in areas such as net neutrality.”

The telecom industry and anti-net neutrality companies like AT&T have given funding to numerous organizations that criticize regulations and net neutrality in the media (often without disclosure). With the debate over net neutrality reignited, media outlets will have a lot of opportunities to correctly note the funding sources of media-friendly groups that are opposing consumer-friendly rules.


https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/28/media-are-failing-note-telecom-funding-sources-anti-net-neutrality-group/216200
No one has ever proven I am not God.
May 18th, 2017 at 6:33:07 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 3
Posts: 872
Quote: JB
You can't move into a new house and choose between Cox, Comcast, or Charter. You get one choice, thus no choice.


I don't know anything about the system in the US but the above seems to be where the real problem is. Where a provider can own a neighbourhood. In Canada in most homes have access to 3 providers via cable/fibre and another provider via satellite. The competition between them keeps anything from happening like the scenario you are creating.
"There is no sin but ignorance" Christopher Marlow
May 18th, 2017 at 6:53:51 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5136
Pet peeve.

Like the freaking ballot initiatives we get in Florida every time we vote, it's often just as imperative to know who is sponsoring legislation.

This net neutrality thing is the same thing. Like if you found Bud Weiser is sponsoring some anti-drinking legislation voluntarily, you should look at that very carefully. There's usually something fishy because that doesn't make any damn sense.

Now if Bud Weiser is sponsoring pro-drinking legislation that's fair enough, and at least makes sense.

Not picking on Bud Weiser, just using them for example.
No one has ever proven I am not God.
May 18th, 2017 at 6:58:02 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 1781
Quote: kenarman
I don't know anything about the system in the US but the above seems to be where the real problem is. Where a provider can own a neighbourhood. In Canada in most homes have access to 3 providers via cable/fibre and another provider via satellite. The competition between them keeps anything from happening like the scenario you are creating.


This is why you have that choice:
Quote:
In July 2015, the CRTC ruled that major telecoms providing fibre to the home must allow smaller providers to purchase wholesale access to their networks. Bell Canada attempted to oppose the ruling, but failed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_Canada
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
May 18th, 2017 at 7:39:50 PM permalink
JB
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 10
Posts: 96
Quote: AZDuffman
You have and will keep having access to the internet, all of it. But bandwidth hogs should be allowed to pay for better service. "Where it is headed" is for Netflix and a few others to be able to crash the system as they keep growing. NN would be like if everyone paid the same flat rate for electricity or water. Now the aluminum smelter and brewery would use more of both, but the utility would not be able to charge more.

I have actually given NN much thought over the years. In the end I looked at who was pushing it and who was not. I looked at the motives of those parties in multiple matters. The people pushing NN love to regulate, the ones against are not as crazy about regulating. I will take the risk in favor of the potential benefits.

Water is a finite resource, and those who use more should be charged more. Internet bandwidth is, at worst, a briefly finite resource.

Netflix already pays their ISP for a very big, high-speed connection. They have a lot of outgoing content, so they are charged an appropriate price for their bandwidth needs. This makes sense and I have no problem with it. Once the data leaves Netflix, they should be off the hook because they've already paid their ISP for the delivery of their content.

Comcast's customers pay Comcast to deliver packets of data from wherever. It is ultimately no business of Comcast whether these packets are coming from netflix.com, whitehouse.gov, or diversitytomorrow.com -- no more than it's the business of your phone company to listen in on your conversations to learn that you talk about movies a lot.

Instead, Comcast sees a lot of packets coming from Netflix, and decides to artificially slow them down until Netflix pays them big bucks. (This isn't a hypothetical, it happened a few years ago.)

This is my problem. Netflix already paid their ISP to deliver the content, and Comcast's customers have already paid Comcast to deliver it. There shouldn't be anything else to negotiate. Instead, Comcast demands additional money from Netflix in order to deliver the content, or else they'll make it look like Netflix's service sucks. Netflix reluctantly agrees, and now each packet of data is paid for three times (twice by Netflix, once by the end user) when it should only be twice (once by Netflix, once by the end user).

It's not about one side loving to regulate and the other not. It's about who gets regulated, the business or the individual. Under NN, ISPs were "regulated" to do what customers are paying them to do, which is hardly regulation at all. Without NN, businesses have the freedom to regulate what part of the internet their customers get to see. You're in favor of being regulated by monopolies, I am not.

The government also recently gave ISPs the ability to sell customer web site access history without the consent of the customers.
May 18th, 2017 at 7:46:39 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 722
Posts: 8412
Quote: JB
An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.


I doubt that it will come down to discriminating websites.

AT&T includes free access for their TV service "Directy TV Now" on cell phones.

COMCAST often gives you a free VOIP wireline phone because it makes people less likely to churn to another option (like satellite TV).

In the future if you buy "internet only" package from COMCAST you will probably get some or all of the following over the top TV networks streaming for free. It will simply require that you spend $30 for a Roku Express adapter.
NBC
Bravo
Syfy
USA Network
MSNBC

Everything else will require buying a package
Page 2 of 5<12345>