Net Neutrality

[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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

To regulate or not

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]

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.

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.

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.

 

[oneill225]

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.

We are talking about expanding government oversight/involvement in the free market with NN. If adequate remedies are already in place, then why impose another layer of bureaucratic enforcement? Anti-trust and free speech laws already exist (all the way to the Constitution).

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.

Isolated issues with adequate existing remedies in place.

 

[audreyh1]

Get another ISP then.

There is the rub. Many folks don’t have a second ISP option.

 

[sengsational]

What adequate remedies are in place to stop ISPs from forcing me to use their VOIP instead of Ooma, for instance?

 

[oneill225]

What adequate remedies are in place to stop ISPs from forcing me to use their VOIP instead of Ooma, for instance?

The same remedy used by the North Carolina resident back in 2005 (linked-to previously in this thread).

 

[Curmudgeon]

The same remedy used by the North Carolina resident back in 2005 (linked-to previously in this thread).

That remedy was that the FCC, helmed by the pro-neutrality Michael Powell, stepped in and said "you can't do that", with the statement "The industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation"

Once net-neutrality is officially out the window, will today's FCC (chaired by the anti-neutrality advocate Ajit Pai) do the same? I think not.

 

[oneill225]

That remedy was that the FCC, helmed by the pro-neutrality Michael Powell, stepped in and said "you can't do that", with the statement "The industry must adhere to certain consumer protection norms if the Internet is to remain an open platform for innovation"

Yes, the same Powell who is quoted as saying "that the proper way to handle the issue is through case-by-case enforcement."

If the FCC does refuse to step in on future cases (which is pure speculation), then the censorship issue is still a matter subject to litigation on its own merits.

As it stands, NN is not much more than a financial gift to Google, Netflix, and Amazon.

 

[gerntz]

There is the rub. Many folks don’t have a second ISP option.

It's their choice where they live & who they elect to make their single isp option. Those in power could open competition for isp's. If no one else chooses to come & you won't move, you accept what's available. Now there's the real rub.

 

[Curmudgeon]

It's their choice where they live & who they elect to make their single isp option. Those in power could open competition for isp's. If no one else chooses to come & you won't move, you accept what's available. Now there's the real rub.

So, if I understand you correctly, a monopoly is not a monopoly if a person can get a different vendor just by the simple act of packing up everything they own and moving their primary place of residence?

 

[sengsational]

As it stands, NN is not much more than a financial gift to Google, Netflix, and Amazon.

How does that work? Large, established content providers pay less per byte than smaller upstarts to send packets across the backbone?

 

[ERD50]

... As it stands, NN is not much more than a financial gift to Google, Netflix, and Amazon.

I don't see that at all. It's the consumers we want to protect.

So going back to the utility analogy - without Net Neutrality (however it might get enforced), we could be looking at a water company who is a business partner with a beer company, telling me I can't use any of the water I buy from them to make my own home-brew beer?

Again, we want the ISP to be the pipe, deliver us the data at the speed and quantity we are willing to pay for. But don't tell us what you will and will not deliver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
It's their choice where they live & who they elect to make their single isp option. Those in power could open competition for isp's. If no one else chooses to come & you won't move, you accept what's available. Now there's the real rub.

So, if I understand you correctly, a monopoly is not a monopoly if a person can get a different vendor just by the simple act of packing up everything they own and moving their primary place of residence?

+1. Saying I can just move is way out there. Methinks gerntz has some sort of vested interest in something, and it's not the consumer.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

So, if I understand you correctly, a monopoly is not a monopoly if a person can get a different vendor just by the simple act of packing up everything they own and moving their primary place of residence?

That is absolutely correct. Monopolies are companies that are the only providers for a market, NOT the only providers for an individual.

We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

 

[Curmudgeon]

That is absolutely correct. Monopolies are companies that are the only providers for a market, NOT the only providers for an individual.

We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

So, by that definition, there are no electrical service monopolies in America? Or water?
(not trying to be snarky, I'm just really having trouble with that definition).
How far would you need to move? Like, if Standard Oil was the only supplier of gasoline in America, but I could get Pemex gas just by driving (wouldn't even have to move) in Mexico, is there a monopoly?

 

[Curmudgeon]

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.

Of course, Netflix does have a pipe. It just doesn't go all the way to your house. Do you really want Netflix to dig up your street to lay a new pipe to your house? And then, have Google come by a few months later to do the same, etc.? And, what about the little guy in Dubuque who thinks he has a great new service that could be the next Amazon, if only he could get access to users... where is he going to get the billions (trillions?) needed to lay pipe? He's not, and so little startups are going to be crowded out by the big guys who can afford to own their own pipe or pay millions to Comcast to get access to your home.

I don't want that, I want to decide for myself whether I'll patronize the startup, or Amazon - not have Comcast decide that for me.

 

[bUU]

We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

Again: We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

Monopolies are companies that are the only providers for a market, NOT the only providers for an individual.

 

[ERD50]

That is absolutely correct. Monopolies are companies that are the only providers for a market, NOT the only providers for an individual.

We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

And where are you getting this definition?

How about I define "the market" as me, the individual? Cause that's the only market I really care about.

Doesn't make any materiel difference to me if the guy across the way (city, county, state, country, planet, universe?) has access to 10 providers if I only have one. My provider has a monopoly over me.

When it's my money, it gets very real - I don't care about theoretical/hypothetical/academic definitions.

And it doesn't take a monopoly to make a problem for a consumer, a common old oligopoly will do.

-ERD50