FCC Releases Plan to End Net Neutrality!!

[seedubs1]

This. So much this. Net Neutrality is essential. Allowing ISPs to throttle or flat out block content is such a bad idea it isn't even funny.

That's a great explanation of part of the truth. Conveniently left out is the fact that without net neutrality, ISP's (E level from that article I guess) can prioritize their own services over the services of other companies crossing the connection to you. As the article states, the aim of net neutrality is for all traffic to be treated the same. Where the main concern lies is at the end user ISP level (Comcast, AT&T, Charter, et al), forcing them to treat their service as a gateway to the internet where all traffic is the same. You can access the sites of Google, MSN, (God forbid) CNN, your email from Google, your video from Netflix and your audio from Amazon Music all exactly the same. Without net neutrality, if Comcast partners with CNN, for example, it could prioritize traffic to that site, while throttling traffic to Fox News. Or it could decide that the music service that it owns gets priority over Amazon Music, or any other music provider. Since their service is the only one that works well, you have the choice of either switching to their service, or perhaps paying a premium fee in order to access the service you prefer. If you don't think this can happen, you haven't been paying attention. Comcast and other ISP's already were found to be throttling content from competing services and other issues. We already pay stupidly high bills for internet service and my prediction is that doing away with net neutrality is only going to increase those prices without providing the consumer with any added benefit.

 

[wtburnette]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/...r-hazletts-great-book-the-political-spectrum/

Wow, that was really, really bad. Sounds reasonable unless you know better. I love how he poo poos ideas like service from Netflix being degraded and throwing in some smokescreen about the rich having some method of better access. I don't know where the heck the part about the rich getting some secret access comes in, but ISP's were already caught degrading the performance of Netflix, as well as file sharing services and VPN services. The problems that pundits like Rush disregard are things that have already happened. The only reason that behavior was stopped was net neutrality being pushed by the FCC. They also love to talk about "letting the market sort it out", but that's the opposite of what will happen. If we had a lot of choices for ISP's, it would be one thing, but that's not the environment we have here in the US. Since we deregulated back in the late 90's, competition has been reduced to almost nothing. We have an effective monopoly/duopoly in most places, so if you don't like what your ISP is doing, you likely won't have any choice. Broadband is now almost as essential as utilities. No one is griping about utilities being regulated because it's done to protect the consumer. To my mind we need regulation of the internet for the same reason.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Are you saying if we did not have net neutrality then the lines going into our homes would not be controlled/owned by a few major people?

do you disagree with his points about FM and cellular rollout being massively slowed due to intentional government action?

Personally I'm stoked at what the profit motive will generate as far as new internet technologies. What we have now is nice, but so was AM

 

[jamil]

Are you saying if we did not have net neutrality then the lines going into our homes would not be controlled/owned by a few major people?

I don't think anyone's saying that. I'm actually not sure what I'm saying about it because I don't really know both sides of it very thoroughly. I just know that there are two sides of it, and that both sides say different things about it.

My concern is that my ISP (Spectrum) offers a streaming service that I don't care to subscribe to. I recently cut the cable and replaced it with a 3rd party streaming service that I am very happy with. So without net neutrality, can Spectrum throttle my current content provider to force me into subscribing to theirs? I don't know.

If the ISP is going to be both an ISP and a content provider, that's fine, but they should treat both parts of their business separately. This isn't the simple free market issue because we're not talking about a an actual free market here. This is just the nature of public utilities. A Hobson's choice isn't really a choice.

 

[wtburnette]

Are you saying if we did not have net neutrality then the lines going into our homes would not be controlled/owned by a few major people?

do you disagree with his points about FM and cellular rollout being massively slowed due to intentional government action?

Personally I'm stoked at what the profit motive will generate as far as new internet technologies. What we have now is nice, but so was AM

I'm saying those are smokescreens to the real issues. Net neutrality won't change who owns or controls the lines. I don't have a clue about how FM or cellular deployments were delayed, but my guess is that we're talking apples and oranges. What will happen if net neutrality is removed is that we will be charged more for what we already have access to. Bottom line.

 

[jamil]

I'm saying those are smokescreens to the real issues. Net neutrality won't change who owns or controls the lines. I don't have a clue about how FM or cellular deployments were delayed, but my guess is that we're talking apples and oranges. What will happen if net neutrality is removed is that we will be charged more for what we already have access to. Bottom line.

Did that happen before net neutrality?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'm saying those are smokescreens to the real issues. Net neutrality won't change who owns or controls the lines. I don't have a clue about how FM or cellular deployments were delayed, but my guess is that we're talking apples and oranges. What will happen if net neutrality is removed is that we will be charged more for what we already have access to. Bottom line.

his point on FM was that it was blocked by the FCC for commercial use by the AM powerhouses. Cellular frequencies were supposedly delayed 40 years because the FCC didn't think there was a commercial market for it. AT&T had a study done in 1980s that estimated less than one million wireless customers by 2000. They missed it by 108 million.

Government blocking private industry from using capitalism to expand technology has hurt us before, and will continue to hurt is. The internet exploded because it was not regulated. Again, because the .gov underestimated its use. The government is full of idiots with mischief in mind. I am more afraid of what the .gov is doing to us than a private company in providing services.

 

[wtburnette]

Did that happen before net neutrality?

Throttling and such happened when it became apparent that there were services that could compete with traditional cable TV, such as Netflix and other streaming companies. Other ISP's were also caught causing issues with VPN because those people on standard service weren't paying for business class, which is what they were trying to push for anyone using VPN to connect to work.

his point on FM was that it was blocked by the FCC for commercial use by the AM powerhouses. Cellular frequencies were supposedly delayed 40 years because the FCC didn't think there was a commercial market for it. AT&T had a study done in 1980s that estimated less than one million wireless customers by 2000. They missed it by 108 million.

Government blocking private industry from using capitalism to expand technology has hurt us before, and will continue to hurt is. The internet exploded because it was not regulated. Again, because the .gov underestimated its use. The government is full of idiots with mischief in mind. I am more afraid of what the .gov is doing to us than a private company in providing services.

NN is just saying that all data coming across the internet connection you're paying your ISP for must be treated the same, so that Comcast can't do anything to disrupt or slow the service provided by any other site or company the customer wants. If I find that I prefer paying the fee for Netflix, rather than paying for another service that the ISP happens to provide, or has a partner that provides, that is my right. Having my Netflix service disrupted or slowed because I didn't choose the ISP's service should be illegal. Having to pay a fee to the ISP in order to choose Netflix instead of the ISP's video service should be illegal. The problem is that we have so little choice in ISP's that whatever BS they dream up, we have no choice but to accept. NN would fix that. It's a pro-consumer measure put in place to protect from some very anti-consumer companies. Go look at the customer service rating of any of the large ISP's and you'll find out why the consumer needs to be protected from them.

 

[npwinder]

his point on FM was that it was blocked by the FCC for commercial use by the AM powerhouses. Cellular frequencies were supposedly delayed 40 years because the FCC didn't think there was a commercial market for it. AT&T had a study done in 1980s that estimated less than one million wireless customers by 2000. They missed it by 108 million.

Government blocking private industry from using capitalism to expand technology has hurt us before, and will continue to hurt is. The internet exploded because it was not regulated. Again, because the .gov underestimated its use. The government is full of idiots with mischief in mind. I am more afraid of what the .gov is doing to us than a private company in providing services.

Seems to be there had to be some technological advances in order to get where we are in terms of cell phones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_mobile_phones

ATT had an early cell phone service in the 40s. However, the unit weighed 80 lbs and the system needed an operator. to quote the wikipedia article "Subscriber growth and revenue generation were hampered by the constraints of the technology. Because only three radio channels were available, only three customers in any given city could make mobile telephone calls at one time.[SUP][12][/SUP]Mobile Telephone Service was expensive, costing 15 USD per month, plus 0.30 to 0.40 USD per local call, equivalent to about 176 USD per month and 3.50 to 4.75 per call in 2012 USD.[SUP][11]"[/SUP]


These early systems also couldn't hand off a call from 1 tower to the next. There was also the issue that every company had their own networks and standards. a phone on one network couldn't even call a phone on another.


Last year, even under the rules of Net Neutrality, Comcast had a net income of 10 billion, ATT had an net income of 13 billion. It costs less than 20 cents for them to transmit a gig of data. The profit is there for them to develop new technologies. They could even team up with the other ISPs, Google, Netflix, amazon, ect ect ect to come up with a new system that speeds up data transmission and lowers the cost bandwidth.


in regards to Rush, He states that net neutrality is about the speed of how fast data can get to. That since not everyone can afford 1gbps connection, it can't happen. Everyone has to get stuck with a plan everyone can afford. This absolutely false. The speed that someone is willing to pay for their internet connection has absolutly nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality states that If I pay for a 100 meg connection, you can't throttle one website in favor of another one the ISP has a deal with. Rush doubles down and use the analogy that since not everyone can afford the jet that goes 700mph, all jets are required to fly at 300 mph.

The final caller brought this argument up. Rush never tackled it head on. He repeatedly started a sentence and then said this the lefts idea about control and since its the lefts idea its bad. Quote one "[FONT=&quot]You’re very wise out there, Josh, to remember this. Your mistake is believing that it’s genuine. This is how they sold net neutrality. They sold it on the basis that… You know, the left owns everything in media except talk radio and cable news, and they want to own it all. They’re very upset by the fact that they can’t compete in talk radio, and they didn’t want this imbalance to happen on the internet. So as leftists are wont to do, they promote equality and fairness and sameness."[/FONT]

Quote 2 [FONT=&quot]RUSH: No, no. I was being serious. The guy reminded me of one of the original pitches for net neutrality. It was to make sure… This is how they tried to get everybody on board with it. Look, the left always uses misdirection. You know, folks, in a sane world, everybody would oppose net neutrality simply because of who’s proposing it. The left is proposing it. Liberalism is responsible for it. It’s their idea. That, in our world, should automatically disqualify it.[/FONT]


"They sold it on the basis that.... it was to make sure....." he never finishes the sentence and goes on how because of net neutrality the left would own the internet He doesn't even make an argument for how the left would be able to shut out the right online. Just that the left wants the control that the very nature of the internet it can't have unless net neutrality is repealed and the left makes deals with the ISP to favor their sites.

As for the caller that owns the small ISP, i'm still uncertain how net neutrality has hurt him. Rush argues the government could impose taxes such as the USF. But there was talk about doing that before Title II. He provides a regional wireless internet for his customers. I found a provider in the williamsport area, and it may or may not be his, but ranges from a 5 meg connection for 40 a month upto 35 megs for 90 a month. Wireless internet is able to reach customers that it would costly to run wire too. However, when other options are available typically, wireless internet is the highest cost option which would account for only have 1500 subscribers. It does sound like he beats the big boys out on customer service. At anyrate, its not a net neutrality issue, that becomes a hardware limitation issue. His rates beats dial up and satellite and maybe even dsl depending on whats available, all the more power to him.

 

[npwinder]

My concern is that my ISP (Spectrum) offers a streaming service that I don't care to subscribe to. I recently cut the cable and replaced it with a 3rd party streaming service that I am very happy with. So without net neutrality, can Spectrum throttle my current content provider to force me into subscribing to theirs? I don't know.

If the ISP is going to be both an ISP and a content provider, that's fine, but they should treat both parts of their business separately. This isn't the simple free market issue because we're not talking about a an actual free market here. This is just the nature of public utilities. A Hobson's choice isn't really a choice.

Prior to the current Title II rules, ISPs had been caught throttling the speed to competing services. The FCC and FTC had fined ISPs over this and deals were made to prevent further issues. Some ISPs that had been caught, still created issues. The FCC tried to come up with net neutrality laws under Title I rules, however, the courts continuously struck them down as Title I laws were not strict enough. In 2015, The easiest way for the FCC to get net neutrality in place preventing abuses from the ISPs and to keep lawsuit and appeals down was to reclassify them as Title II. Wtih very few ISPs in any one area and them having a natural monopoly, Protections are needed to keep the ISPs from using their power to shut down competition. With Net Neutrality in place, it creates competition for for Spectrum to improve their streaming services, that is where the free market comes into play.

Without Net Neutrality, Spectrum could throttle and block 3rd party streaming sites that compete with their own streaming service unless they pay spectrum to be allowed. That means you pay spectrum for internet access, The 3rd party streaming service pays spectrum to get to you, which is spectrum double dipping. The streaming service also has to increase their subscription fee in order to cover the costs of spectrums fee.
This can strongly persuade subscribers to switch to spectrum without forcing spectrum to improve service to create a better streaming service than the 3rd party.

 

[BugI02]

Pai: Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Internet Than ISPs | Multichannel

"Now look: I love Twitter, and I use it all the time," Pai said. "But let’s not kid ourselves; when it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.
"As just one of many examples, two months ago, Twitter blocked Rep. Marsha Blackburn [the Republican chair of the House Communications subcommittee who helped overturn FCC broadband privacy rules] from advertising her Senate campaign launch video because it featured a pro-life message. Before that, during the so-called [net neutrality] Day of Action, Twitter warned users that a link to a statement by one company on the topic of Internet regulation “may be unsafe.” And to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users. This conduct is many things, but it isn’t fighting for an open Internet."

 

[BugI02]

Portugal's internet shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly - LA Times

Portugal isn’t the only country allowing tiering of internet services. In Britain, the internet service provider Vodaphone charges about $33 a month for basic service but offers several “passes” allowing unlimited video or music streaming, social media usage, or chat, at additional tariffs of up to $9.30 per month.


Although both countries are part of the European Union, which has an explicit commitment to network neutrality, these arrangements are allowed under provisions giving national regulators some flexibility. These regulators can open loopholes permitting “zero-rating,” through which ISPs can exclude certain services from data caps. That’s what the Portuguese and British ISPs essentially are doing.

But ... but ... it's the EU, the wellspring of all that's right and good!

As it happens, that’s precisely the loophole that has existed in the U.S. market under the FCC’s vaunted net neutrality rule of 2015. At that time, the commission also said it would review zero-rating and other such arrangements on a case-by-case basis, but only after they ISPs implemented them.


How has that worked? Lousily.

Now I wonder why Obama's ultimate perfect FCC didn't close that loophole. Is most of the fuss about who gets paid and how? Seems tailor made for more lobbying at all levels

"Follow the money" (Leadeye™)

 

[BugI02]

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...-americans-so-worried-about-it-being-scrapped
Net neutrality: why are Americans so worried about it being scrapped?

Other internet giants have an even weaker support for the principle. Facebook has actively contributed to the erosion of net neutrality in the developing world, through its Internet.org Free Basics programme. That offers free internet access, but only to a selected list of low-bandwidth websites (Facebook, naturally, is included). For the company that wants to ensure that all human communication is piped through its channels, whether or not other websites have good connections isn’t a great concern.

Lolz

 

[npwinder]

Pai: Twitter Is Bigger Threat to Open Internet Than ISPs | Multichannel

Twitter, facebook, Google, ect, are content providers. They can be held responsible for what is on their sites either through legal action or actions by the users staying or leaving the site and to the advertisers. ISPs are not held responsible for what passes over their wires. ISPs have very little competition.

Lets take a look at the cell phone market. ATT and Verizon are the biggest fish I happen to be on Verizon. One usually ends up following the other. One had unlimited data the other offered it. One got rid of it, the other did. Tmobile and Sprint has given them a run for their money. I pay more for Verizon that I would for Tmobile, I feel like that Verizon gives me the best network. However, I have benefited from Tmobile and Sprint. Those two fought hard to bring back a version of Unlimited data. Several years, I didn't have an unlimited option. Now, Its there if I feel like spending the money. For less a month, I can choose to have a 4g data cap then unlimited 3g data. As long as I remember to turn wifi on my phone while at home, my wife and I don't have issues running over our 12 gb 4g data allotment.

Now, with a couple ISPs in an area, If one decides to block or throttle a site and the other follows, your screwed. The capital it takes to build a network is substantial means it will be sometime before another competitor is providing service.

Relating back to content providers
Its free use twitter, facebook, google, youtube ect. They also have terms and condition and a privacy policy to use the site and they are allowed to change it anytime they feel to suit their business. They answer somewhat to the users. The users are the product. They also answer to the advertisers that pay the bills. Youtubers have fell victim to the advertisers. Youtube allowed a controversial video to have ads. Advertisers left in droves. Now, youtubers get the fall out of having their video demonetized and channels taken down by a bot. Is that fair? No. Can youtube do it? yes. Are youtubers free to start another site and fish for the own advertisers? Ofcourse.
The internet is wide open place, and under net neutrality continues to be. It costs next to nothing to start a competing site. Yes, it takes money to scale a site and to steal users. If the plan is there, Investors usually follow. Its fully expected that something will come along and upend Twitter, Facebook, and Google.

I believe information from all sides needs to be free flowing. Thats the only way ideas become better. Shutting down one side or the other of the debate creates echo chambers which is the most dangerous form of thought. I hate to see sites shut down one side or the other. However, if the site doesn't listen, its easy to look elsewhere.

 

[npwinder]

Portugal's internet shows us a world without net neutrality, and it's ugly - LA Times



But ... but ... it's the EU, the wellspring of all that's right and good!



Now I wonder why Obama's ultimate perfect FCC didn't close that loophole. Is most of the fuss about who gets paid and how? Seems tailor made for more lobbying at all levels

"Follow the money" (Leadeye™)

The graphic talks about cell phone service and was improperly cited as how Portugal's internet works.

Net neutrality is about internet data being treated the same no matter the source.

Zero Net talks about content providers and ISPs coming up with deals that so the Content providers site doesn't count against Data Caps. Zero net could harm net neutrality, It could also benefit the consumer. It may do the opposite. It may not have an effect one way or another. There's not exactly enough deals to see how they work. With that in mind, Obama's FCC has decided to let the deals happen and then evaluate them in real world practice. The only company I am aware that has net zero deals is Tmobile and I honestly don't know how they are implemented.

Net zero could make the internet a pay for play by making it too expensive for new companies to enter the market, which is what Net Neutrality works to prevent. However, if data limits are generous enough, or there's enough competition under a net zero deal, with clear terms on how a content provider can become a net zero provider, it very well maybe a consumer benefit.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Net neutrality is about internet data being treated the same no matter the source.

But does it allow the carrier to treat it differently depending on the destination?

The simple fact is that if the Tier I provider wants to throttle Netflix going to frontier customers, Frontier can (and already does) simply run a pipe directly to Netflix servers and bypass the tier I pipes, providing direct high-speed feed to their customers. Frontier isn't going to lose customers due to something outside their control throttling the service to their customers. They simply go direct.

ending net neutrality will inevitably expand these direct data connections, right?

Let the markets solve it.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/23/...urnal-confirms-multiyear-traffic-deal-between


https://gigaom.com/2014/08/19/netfl...r-cable-for-direct-access-and-faster-streams/

 

[npwinder]

But does it allow the carrier to treat it differently depending on the destination?

The simple fact is that if the Tier I provider wants to throttle Netflix going to frontier customers, Frontier can (and already does) simply run a pipe directly to Netflix servers and bypass the tier I pipes, providing direct high-speed feed to their customers. Frontier isn't going to lose customers due to something outside their control throttling the service to their customers. They simply go direct.

ending net neutrality will inevitably expand these direct data connections, right?

Let the markets solve it.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/23/...urnal-confirms-multiyear-traffic-deal-between


https://gigaom.com/2014/08/19/netfl...r-cable-for-direct-access-and-faster-streams/

https://www.maxcdn.com/blog/2015-net-neutrality-ruling/

Open internet rules didnt affect the peering agreements. While they could cause net neutrality issues, the agreement itslef isnt a net neutrality violation. Mostly these agreements were taken as network management and therefore are permitted today.

The open internet rules under title II are for the last mile delivery from the isp equipment to the home user. In that last mile, the ISP cant discriminate against traffic. It says nothing about how fast traffic can get to the isps network just the limits once it hits their network.

Now while an ISP can not artificially throttle data, if theres a hardware issue that ends up slowing traffic from a content provider, it may not be a net neutrality issue. However if an isp intenntionally sends all traffic from one site through a congested port, when they have other ports available, it does become a net neutrality issue.

 

[seedubs1]

That only works if there there is an adequately sized market that isn’t stomped out by giants and you, as a customer, have a real choice. There is no market. You only have a choice of one or two providers. That’s why you need net neutrality.

Let the markets solve it.

https://www.theverge.com/2014/2/23/...urnal-confirms-multiyear-traffic-deal-between


https://gigaom.com/2014/08/19/netfl...r-cable-for-direct-access-and-faster-streams/

 

[jamil]

https://twitter.com/comcast/status/933394263689351175

This is an interesting exchange. Comcast says they're all for net neutrality. But promises to play fair if it's quashed. Meanwhile spends tons of money to lobby to quash it. Yeah. Follow the money.

I'm kinda thinking both sides are full of ****.

 

[cordex]

I'm kinda thinking both sides are full of ****.

Both sides are funded by massive corporations who stand to gain financially - ultimately at some cost to end users - if their preferred position is achieved. Both sides use emotional and falsely altruistic arguments to lobby for general support of their position.

That said, both sides also have good and reasonable points. Net neutrality will stifle growth and development in a way that may harm end-users. At the same time, in the absense of net neutrality, ISPs with government-approved monopolies will have incentives to find ways to make more money in a way that may harm end users. Trying to make either side out to be the unsullied humanitarian position is myopic.

All that said, and with my limited understanding, I default to the "reduced government intervention is better in the long run" position.