Net Neutrality

[REWahoo]

Nobody really knows what it will be like without net neutrality, we have always essentially had it since the internet began. That was the way the internet evolved. Eliminating it is something entirely new.

Standby for the law of unintended consequences to once again remind us how fickle it can be...

 

[Chuckanut]

I’m generally anti-regulation. Treating ISPs as monopolies using laws similar to those crafted to regulate Ma Bell seemed very unnecessary to me.
.

For many people internet service is a monopoly. Most of the people I know have one choice for modern fast service - the local cable company. I am 'lucky' in that I have two choices - the cable company and FIOS from the phone company. Alas, my personal experience and academic studies show that at least three providers of a good/service are needed to have meaningful competition.

 

[Chuckanut]

+1

NN means someone who hogs net resources pays no more than someone who is efficient. If this were the case 50 years ago, someone who made 10 hours worth of long distance phone calls per day would pay no more than someone who used only 10 minutes.

Understandably ISPs do not like NN, but instead of charging the big data users more they want to charge big data providers, such as Netflix, more. It's not clear to me why that should be the case.

I agree. In a competitive environment, a provider could offer a rate plan with a very high cap that would prevent abuse, yet allow the vast majority of us to use the Internet freely and not worry about extra charges or running out of data. Unfortunately, for most of us, there is no effective competition (three or more source of Internet access).

I have heard that 5G service may provide more high speed competitors. That remains to be seen.

 

[bUU]

But looking at the costs of an ISP ...

It is fallacious for society, government, or consumers to concern themselves with the cost of an ISP. For unregulated commercial enterprises, cost is strictly a consideration for the company itself, i.e., its owners. If a company sells some of their products or services at a loss, consumers don't complain; they have no foundation to complain about when products or services are sold for profit.

The consumer's legitimate concern is the price, not the cost. So you really we'll have to come up with a different argument to justify what you were trying to support.

If you want to regulate a business, that's a different matter, and one that (especially today) has to be justified on substantive grounds that are in synch with the sense of society as evidenced by who voters put in power.

 

[oneill225]

Nobody really knows what it will be like without net neutrality, we have always essentially had it since the internet began. That was the way the internet evolved. Eliminating it is something entirely new.

Nobody knows because the feared "abuses" by the ISPs was not happening prior to the net neutrality regulations.

Net neutrality was pushed through a sympathetic administration by the Googles of the world to preemptively stop the ISPs from charging them more for their high bandwidth products. In other words, "net neutrality" was a solution waiting for a problem.

In my opinion, there is no real harm in removing this regulation. If, in the future, our internet "rights" are truly suffering, a more tailored solution (for an actual problem) could easily be enacted.

 

[sengsational]

I'm surprised that we aren't better versed on what net neutrality is. Hard to believe people don't see the down-side of removing the regulation. Hasn't having to deal with monopoly or near monopoly cable companies taught us anything?

The idea is that the ISP is a "common carrier", and as such, are simply bit movers. They can't do anything different depending on what kind of bits they are (video, text, etc), and where those bits are coming from (the TV station they own, or YouTube, which Google owns).

Net neutrality has been in effect since the beginning of the Internet. There may have been laws enacted surrounding the legality of manipulation by ISP's, but basically, ISP's have always been "common carriers".

Removing net neutrality could mean that your ISP offers you fragmented service, like cable companies do now. For instance, they could say, your subscription allows YouTube, but not Hulu. And you know that if they can make more money by fragmenting, they'll go to town doing that.

There is confusion about paying for bandwidth. Having speed restrictions, data caps, etc are NOT net neutrality concerns. ISP's are free today to charge whatever they want for various speed and quantity caps. ERD50 has it right: ISP's can limit speed, limit the amount of data per unit time without running afoul of net neutrality. They would, then, by default, price higher for the gamers, lower for the emailers. No problem, as long as they do it by the number of bits, and not where those bits come from. The whole "hogs get a free ride" thing is a smoke screen and has NOTHING to do with net neutrality. Sorry GrayHare, you, and so many others kind of got it wrong.

CaliforniaMan has got it. Removing net neutrality would be something new. Removing net neutrality favors ISP's making more money. If you're in favor of a monopoly or near-monopoly making more money, they you're in favor of removing net neutrality.

 

[USGrant1962]

Net neutrality was pushed through a sympathetic administration by the Googles of the world to preemptively stop the ISPs from charging them more for their high bandwidth products. In other words, "net neutrality" was a solution waiting for a problem.

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.

 

[rbmrtn]

They can but have made a business decision not to. They do charge more for faster access / higher bandwidth.

Many already do. My ISP has tiered speed/bandwith and also has data usage limits. They will charge $ more x amount of GBs over the limit on your tier.

Also the fine print on the terms of service has always included words that they could limit data hogs.

NN is more about preventing large monopolies from preventing or restricting what you can see, not how much. AT&T could limit or charge more for netflix data while not charging you for some service they provide.

 

[GrayHare]

Good feedback, I'll rejigger my thinking on the subject. If the ISPs are looking for more money, why is there not widespread billing of customers by the gigabyte or somesuch? Is it that it's simpler for ISPs to charge, say, Netflix extra instead of counting bits used by each customer and billing each customer what will be a varying amount of money each period?

 

[harley]

Nobody really knows what it will be like without net neutrality, we have always essentially had it since the internet began. That was the way the internet evolved. Eliminating it is something entirely new.

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.

 

[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".

 

[audreyh1]

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about net neutrality. It does not mean providers cannot charge more for more usage, more bytes transmitted, it simply means that providers cannot charge differently because of what is contained in those bytes or who sends them. Wikipedia has a decent definition. Seems to me there has to be at least agreement on a definition before one can discuss it.

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content."

Exactly, that's my understanding.

Not that someone doesn't get charged more if they get more data or higher speed.

 

[audreyh1]

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".

Yep!

 

[gerntz]

True. Is there something about that article that strikes you as hiding or misrepresenting something?

=ERD50

"Pro: Yes. Neutrality has been a core democratizing principle of the Internet since the day it was born. Internet service should be like phone service: the phone company can't make the connection worse if they don't approve of the person you're calling.
,,,,
Pro: Because net neutrality protects innovation. If big companies such as Netflix and Google could pay to get special treatment—faster speeds, more bandwidth—little start-ups would be at a disadvantage."

I don't see that either of these are true. There's nothing offered that says the net has always been neutral as if I'm supposed to take that as fact, & while it may allow the companies mentioned to innovate, it deincentivized pipes from innovating their systems; i.e., they're good enough & we'll just collect the fees. So it's not clear at all for me where the best innovation will come from.

"But what about freedom of speech? Without net neutrality, Comcast could give priority to video from TV networks it owns—such as NBC—and slow down the signals from its rivals."

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.

"Con: We wouldn't do that. Pinky swear. Verizon said that giving “unblocked access to lawful Web sites ... will not change.”
Pro: Oh no? Then why was Verizon the company that led the charge to strike down net neutrality in court?"

Where's the evidence that the pipes said what the Cons worry about? And again, if so, the pipes own them. Let the Cons get their own pipes.

 

[gerntz]

Nobody really knows what it will be like without net neutrality, we have always essentially had it since the internet began. That was the way the internet evolved. Eliminating it is something entirely new.

So is regulating it.

 

[mpeirce]

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]

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]

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]

An example of NN

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]

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-researc...ogress-reports/2016-broadband-progress-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]

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]

....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.

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.

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]

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