Net Neutrality

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley That's exactly the opposite of correct. The Net Neutrality law was only passed in 2015, and has been in effect for 2 1/2 years. Before that the net was neutral, during it the net has been neutral, and after it's gone the net will still be neutral. Someone I read somewhere called the bill something like a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist. I don't think getting rid of the regulation will make any significant difference. Life will go on.

I agree.

There is so much FUD surrounding this issue it's truly amazing. People are acting like rolling back the FCC ruling to what it was a couple of years ago is the end of the world. Ridiculous.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by USGrant1962 Yes, the government is basically getting in the middle of negotiations between the FAANGs and ISPs. I think Facebook/Apple/Amazon/Netflix/Google can take on Comcast/Charter/AT&T/Verizon just fine all on their own. But most all of those parties have monopoly issues that bear watching. As implemented, NN doesn't really solve those, but there are already antitrust laws.

What he/she said.

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley The Net Neutrality law was only passed in 2015

That's another part of the problem. There actually was was no Net Neutrality Law passed. It was simply a ruling of the FCC.

Something of as political as this should be passed by congress, not an agency.

[MichaelB]

The current FCC issue is not to regulate or not. It is to regulate ISPs under Title 1 – like a telecommunications company, or Title 2 – like a public utility. Previously, ISPs were regulated under Title 1 and neutrality rules were applied. A Verizon lawsuit challenging those rules prompted the FCC to reclassify ISP’s as under Title 2.

The concerns about Title 2 regulation are well represented here. This is an industry that is still evolving, which utility type regulation may stifle. It also may discourage new participants.

The concerns about Title 1 regulation with no neutrality rules are explained on a recent Vox podcast of The Weeds, here. ISPs are heavily invested in news and entertainment content ownership, and have a clear conflict of interest. They are in a position to favor the delivery of some content over other, including their own.
Complicating this is most of the concerns expressed by both views are potential issues that might occur, not real issues today that are happening.

It’s entirely possible that neither Title 1 nor Title 2 provide an adequate framework for regulating ISPs. Lost in the discussion is the number of people in the US with inadequate internet availability and the unwillingness of ISPs to invest in low density areas. The only thing that is clear to me is the companies involved – AT&T, Comcast, TWC, have many previous instances of anti-consumer behavior that deliberately violates the regulatory scheme they are subject to, and on occasion, even the law.

[spud99]

Here's an old example. A small phone company/ISP in North Carolina decided that if you wanted home phone service you could only buy it from them. To enforce such a decision they blocked Vonage VoIP customers from getting their home phone services using their internet connection.

Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

[Curmudgeon]

Imagine if the electric company could control what you used electricity for... "We have a deal with Honda, so if we see that you're using our electricity to charge your Prius, it's going to get slowed down to a trickle. And we're fine with you using the electricity for lighting, but only if you buy the lightbulbs from us."

The difference between electric companies and ISPs is that electric companies can't tell what you're powering, but an ISP can (and does) look at your data and knows EXACTLY what you're doing. This is why we need NN.

[Cessna152]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon Wow, a lot of misconceptions in this thread. To address a few: 1)"ISPs are not a monopoly" - According to the FCC, only 42% of census blocks had access to more than 1 broadband ISP. Only 13% had access to more than 2. So, yes, for many people, their ISP has a monopoly, or a near-monopoly.

Um ... The FCC excludes both mobile (3G/4G/LTE) and geosynchronous satellite technologies from its definition of broadband technologies when it reports those numbers. Furthermore, over the years its definition of broadband has increased in bit rates. From https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research...rogress-report

"The Commission also retains the existing speed benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) for fixed services, but finds that the current record is insufficient to set an appropriate speed benchmark for mobile service."

... and...

"Because no fixed satellite broadband service meets the 25 Mbps/3Mbps speed threshold as of the reporting period, the Report does not address the question of whether fixed satellite broadband services meeting this speed threshold would be considered to provide advanced telecommunications capability."

So by including the qualifier word "broadband" one changes the reality of multiple choices that people have to get access to the internet to "near monopolies." I live in a semi-rural area and have used DSL, geo-satellite, and WISP ISPs. With 4G as backup! People who are on cable in urban areas have no clue that other options exist. Or think a monopoly exists because they can't live on lower bit rates.

Lastly, both SpaceX and OneWeb are racing each other to be the first low-earth-orbit ISPs. I think several other firms are planning the same thing, so yet more options will exist for just about everyone in about 3 years.

The monopoly claim is mostly nonsense. In the unlikely event you do have just one provider available, you still have the option to move you know.

[Cessna152]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Lost in the discussion is the number of people in the US with inadequate internet availability and the unwillingness of ISPs to invest in low density areas.

"Raises hand."

I live in one of those low density areas. It is hard not to have options available (including moving!) After using DSL for a couple years (noisy line caused too many link drops) and then geo-satellite (Exede - pretty dang good; only issue was latency; was able to do live Webex demos using audio+video) and last few years I've used WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider - think WiFi on steroids - in our case the WISP radio tower is on a mountain top 5 miles away and the dish on our end was mounted on a tree about 200 feet away.)

Turns out most WISPs are small local companies serving mostly those rural areas that the big companies don't cover. Speed is similar to WiFi. If you are curious you can check to see if there is a WISP covering your area with this tool:

Wireless Internet Service Providers Association > Directories > Find a WISP

So what do the genuinely small ISPs think of these regulatory changes? Quoting from this press release:

"Most U.S. WISPs are small and medium-sized businesses serving rural areas with an average of 10 employees or less. In comments filed at the FCC in this proceeding, WISPA stated that the FCC’s “net neutrality” regulations, which are designed to treat all internet providers like large monopoly utilities, are taking resources away from investment in under-served areas and diverting them instead toward lawyers and compliance consultants. The “light-touch” regulatory environment that existed from the earliest days of the internet until 2015 served consumers better than the new rules, WISPA said."

[sengsational]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley ....and after it's gone the net will still be neutral

Wrong-o buffalo! As Michael noted, "before" they were regulated under title 1. But now they want to pick and choose who's servers they will deliver to your house, and who's servers they will block. They've got dollars signs in their eyes and they're looking like the cable monopolies of the 70's, and we know how that turned out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spud99 Here's an old example. A small phone company/ISP in North Carolina decided that if you wanted home phone service you could only buy it from them. To enforce such a decision they blocked Vonage VoIP customers from getting their home phone services using their internet connection. Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

Thanks for that example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon Imagine if the electric company could control what you used electricity for... "We have a deal with Honda, so if we see that you're using our electricity to charge your Prius, it's going to get slowed down to a trickle. And we're fine with you using the electricity for lighting, but only if you buy the lightbulbs from us." The difference between electric companies and ISPs is that electric companies can't tell what you're powering, but an ISP can (and does) look at your data and knows EXACTLY what you're doing. This is why we need NN.

Thanks for that example.

I simply can't imagine why anyone would feel the need to give ISP's more power over consumers than they already have. Most of us have no choice but to buy from whoever is the local provider. If there were 20 choices, I'd say let the market rule. There is usually one choice. Maybe a handful at the most. That is NOT enough to let the market rule.

Ok, I'm done. If you still want to support monopolies, that's up to you.

For the rest of us, please, do something about it.

[Ronnieboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon 2)"ISPs should be able to charge more to high-bandwidth users" - they can, and do (I regularly pay more if my data usage goes over a certain cap). Moreover, nothing about NN limits how much you are charged for the quantity of data you consume. It just says that ISPs cannot treat the data differently based on the TYPE of data - that is, they can't intentionally slow down Netflix videos while letting Amazon Prime videos go through at full speed, nor can they charge you more for 1G of email than they do for 1G of music. 3)"We've only had NN for a couple years, it hasn't benefited me at all" - Actually, we've had neutrality, or near neutrality, pretty much since the beginning of the internet. It was only made a regulation a few years ago when it became obvious that without it, ISPs were starting to abuse the lack of regulation. 4)"We didn't have any problems when NN wasn't the law" - actually, we did. AT&T, which wanted to push it's own DirectTV video service over competitors, didn't count DirectTV against a user's data cap, while other streaming video DID count. Verizon has done similar things. Comcast used to slow down all traffic for users of BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing app. Verizon has admitted to throttling many types of video. And it's clear that all of the ISPs are gearing up to take full advantage of the new lack of neutrality when it goes into effect. Net Neutrality basically says "If I'm paying you for 1GB of data, it's none of your business what that data is - you have no right look at it and then (based on what it is) block it, slow it down, or extort money from any other internet company to ensure it gets to me".

This is how I understand it and believing it is correct, I am for NN.


Just FYI on bandwidth/data usage: I do get charged more for increasing speed on my internet (darn kids and their gaming system(s)) I also get charged more to have "unlimited" data. My normal 100mbps speed would allow my family to use 250GB per month. We never hit that for a number of years. Then one of my kids got interested in doing videos and steaming games, etc. Now we find that it is less expensive to do unlimited data for $50 extra per month than pay the overage fines when we exceed 250GB

My oldest son on the other hand has Google Fiber and doesn't have any caps and pays a little less than me for 10x the speed, not that I can tell a difference between the speeds

[bUU]

Much of the discussion is irrelevant. If the government doesn't consider ISPs monopolies and regulates them for the public interest then they're not, even if you think they should be. Presuming in any way that they should operate as if they were monopolies, pricing their products in the manner that they would be priced if they were actually monopolies, is absolutely foolish.

The choice is between free market service providers and regulated utilities. Assuming that you are in favor of making a change from the former to the latter it will be necessary to change fundamental underpinnings of today's political trends. Until those trends reverse it's nonsense think these companies should operate in any way other than they're currently operating.

To call out this particular service for special scrutiny rather than recognizing that there are MORE essential services that are also on the free market side rather than the regulated side is a bit disingenuous. How can we be talking about re-regulating ISPs when more basic needs of human beings in our society are left in the competitive space? Before we talk about ISPs, let's talk about supermarket redlining, rural communities with one hospital, and drugs with patent protection.

[ChiliPepr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon Wow, a lot of misconceptions in this thread. To address a few: 1)"ISPs are not a monopoly" - According to the FCC, only 42% of census blocks had access to more than 1 broadband ISP. Only 13% had access to more than 2. So, yes, for many people, their ISP has a monopoly, or a near-monopoly. 2)"ISPs should be able to charge more to high-bandwidth users" - they can, and do (I regularly pay more if my data usage goes over a certain cap). Moreover, nothing about NN limits how much you are charged for the quantity of data you consume. It just says that ISPs cannot treat the data differently based on the TYPE of data - that is, they can't intentionally slow down Netflix videos while letting Amazon Prime videos go through at full speed, nor can they charge you more for 1G of email than they do for 1G of music. 3)"We've only had NN for a couple years, it hasn't benefited me at all" - Actually, we've had neutrality, or near neutrality, pretty much since the beginning of the internet. It was only made a regulation a few years ago when it became obvious that without it, ISPs were starting to abuse the lack of regulation. 4)"We didn't have any problems when NN wasn't the law" - actually, we did. AT&T, which wanted to push it's own DirectTV video service over competitors, didn't count DirectTV against a user's data cap, while other streaming video DID count. Verizon has done similar things. Comcast used to slow down all traffic for users of BitTorrent, a popular file-sharing app. Verizon has admitted to throttling many types of video. And it's clear that all of the ISPs are gearing up to take full advantage of the new lack of neutrality when it goes into effect. Net Neutrality basically says "If I'm paying you for 1GB of data, it's none of your business what that data is - you have no right look at it and then (based on what it is) block it, slow it down, or extort money from any other internet company to ensure it gets to me".

Very good explination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz The pipes own the systems. If Netflix etc want equal access, they can buy their own pipes. The pipes aren't theirs to decide who gets what use.

Do you really believe this? Do you believe that the telephone company should be able to lower the line quality for anyone talking about a certain subject on the phone?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon Imagine if the electric company could control what you used electricity for... "We have a deal with Honda, so if we see that you're using our electricity to charge your Prius, it's going to get slowed down to a trickle. And we're fine with you using the electricity for lighting, but only if you buy the lightbulbs from us." The difference between electric companies and ISPs is that electric companies can't tell what you're powering, but an ISP can (and does) look at your data and knows EXACTLY what you're doing. This is why we need NN.

good example.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB ISPs are heavily invested in news and entertainment content ownership, and have a clear conflict of interest. They are in a position to favor the delivery of some content over other, including their own.

It's not a conflict of interest. It's their business. Let the content providers get their own delivery system.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon Imagine if the electric company could control what you used electricity for... "We have a deal with Honda, so if we see that you're using our electricity to charge your Prius, it's going to get slowed down to a trickle. And we're fine with you using the electricity for lighting, but only if you buy the lightbulbs from us." The difference between electric companies and ISPs is that electric companies can't tell what you're powering, but an ISP can (and does) look at your data and knows EXACTLY what you're doing. This is why we need NN.

Get another ISP then.

[Senator]

Interesting that people are worried about their ISP blocking sites, or somehow manipulating different internet activities, and yet Facebook, Amazon, Google go unchallenged.

I would be way more worried about the above companies affecting your internet experience than any changes or reducing any regulations by way of any Title 1, 2 or 3...

If absence of net neutrality issue is that an ISP can regulate what sites you go to, can net neutrality also stop a forum from moderating it's members posts?

There was talk about net neutrality having the ability to ban different privately owned internet news sites, or having the news sites being required post news equality from differing political parties. How would that be any different than perceived political posts in a forum?

I do not think the full effects of the NN law of 2015 were ever tested by the courts and fully implemented.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB Lost in the discussion is the number of people in the US with inadequate internet availability and the unwillingness of ISPs to invest in low density areas.

I think this is the main driver of NN. There would soon be a push to force ISPs to deliver services to unprofitable areas, and an extra fee on your internet bill to provide internet services for low-income or rural areas. Just like phone service.

[ChiliPepr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator If absence of net neutrality issue is that an ISP can regulate what sites you go to, can net neutrality also stop a forum from moderating it's members posts?

The absence of NN would not stop a forum from moderating posts. NN deals with the speed and access to sites, and in which ways the ISP can control it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator There was talk about net neutrality having the ability to ban different privately owned internet news sites, or having the news sites being required post news equality from differing political parties. How would that be any different than perceived political posts in a forum?

Other way around... NN says you cannot ban or restrict the quality of service to websites. With the removal of NN, FIOS could come out and say "You can buy any service we have, but if you want access to Netflix it will cost you $100 more a month, but no addition cost for using Amazon Prime" (does not matter if you even watch any Netflix movies). NN basically says that your ISP must treat all data on the internet that same. just like the electric company is not allowed to charge you a different amount to run your stove vs run your refrigerator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator I do not think the full effects of the NN law of 2015 were ever tested by the courts and fully implemented.

NN is not a law, it is a ruling by the FCC. It basically says that all data traveling on the internet is treated equally, you cannot give one type of data preference over another. You charge more for higher speeds, but you cannot then say I am going to charge you even more if you want access to Netflix.

[oneill225]

This discussion makes clear that there is a real divide between those weary of government regulation and those who are more comfortable turning to the government to solve perceived problems.

Put me in the camp of those weary (after working for a federal bureaucracy for many years). In this case, there were no major issues with ISPs prior to the ruling for NN. Even the example provided earlier (North Carolina ISP shutting out Vonage) occurred in 2005 (no official NN in effect) and it was quickly resolved under the existing system. If the argument is that we "need" the government to preemptively control ISPs with NN regulations, then this example proves the opposite.

This is really a battle between huge corporations. Up to this point, everyday consumers have not been affected, so why involve the power of the government when no significant problem exists?

NN came into existence because one side of this corporate battle had a better lobbying effort and more friends in positions of government power. The naïve notion that NN came about to help the American people is just laughable to me and the unintended consequences will just lead to more government intervention to "fix" the flaws in the last fix.

[Curmudgeon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneill225 This discussion makes clear that there is a real divide between those weary of government regulation and those who are more comfortable turning to the government to solve perceived problems.

I think it's more complicated than that. I'm generally in the 'less regulation is better' camp, but when giant corporations abuse a monopoly (or near-monopoly) status to ream consumers, exceptions may be justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneill225 In this case, there were no major issues with ISPs prior to the ruling for NN.

There absolutely were issues, whether they were major or not is a matter of opinion. Probably they were considered major to the people actually impacted, if not by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneill225 Up to this point, everyday consumers have not been affected

Just not true. There are many examples, some of which have been mentioned in this thread.

[sengsational]

So in the absence of NN regs, an ISP made a profit grab that took choice away from customers (the NC phone example mentioned just now by oniell255).

Why would one presume that profit grabbing would not resume when ISPs are not restricted from doing so?

Or maybe your position is that limiting consumer choice is a good thing, or at least not harmful.

I'm as anti-reg as anyone, but much more anti reg when the directive is convoluted, detailed, arbitrary, etc. This reg is simple and logical: just move bits. I can manage such a simple, straight forward reg in the face of a monopoly.