The Death of Net Neutrality?

[Gmash]

So long, net neutrality? FCC to propose new pay-for-preferential treatment rules | PCWorld

The FCC proposal would allow broadband
providers to charge higher traffic
management prices to Web services that
they see as competitors, and dealing with
issues on a case-by-case basis would cause
confusion for Web entrepreneurs, Weinberg
added. “This standard allows ISPs to impose
a new price of entry for innovation on the
Internet,” he said.
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron
called on the FCC to pass “real” net
neutrality rules.
“With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and
abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to
destroy the open Internet,” he said by email.
“Giving ISPs the green light to implement
pay-for-priority schemes will be a disaster
for startups, nonprofits and everyday Internet
users who cannot afford these unnecessary
tolls. These users will all be pushed onto the
Internet dirt road, while deep pocketed
Internet companies enjoy the benefits of the
newly created fast lanes.”

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs...ource=www&utm_medium=tw&utm_campaign=20140424

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

[Rukbat]

A lot of FUDD. If you follow Wheeler's history, you'll see that he's been blatantly against gatekeeping. It's like the "with Obamacare no one can afford insurance", yet my wife couldn't afford it UNTIL the ACA took effect. The campaigns for the mid-term elections are starting. Expect to see a lot of stuff like this.

 

[out of ideas]

Sad day for the internet.

do any of these links include the comcast/fcc/lobbyist charts that were floating around? I'll have to dig them up some other time if not.

 

[Gmash]

I didn't see any charts, but this obviously has lobbyist fingerprints all over it.

 

[Gmash]

A lot of FUDD. If you follow Wheeler's history, you'll see that he's been blatantly against gatekeeping. It's like the "with Obamacare no one can afford insurance", yet my wife couldn't afford it UNTIL the ACA took effect. The campaigns for the mid-term elections are starting. Expect to see a lot of stuff like this.

I don't think this is political in that way, there's plenty of lobbyist money to fill the pockets in both parties. If anything the republicans would probably be more in favor of this because it helps big business and they can call it "deregulation".

 

[SiempreTuna]

This is a blatant attack on freedom of speech .. but I somehow doubt the current Supreme Court will see it that way: they only care about 'rights' for the rich and in this case, the ISPs - who are charging $60/month for a service that costs $5/month to provide - are the rich.

(I have a feeling this one's destined for the P&CA forum - if this ain't political, I don't know what is )

 

[El Presidente]

(I have a feeling this one's destined for the P&CA forum - if this ain't political, I don't know what is )

The force is strong with you.

Moved to P&CA, any issues with the move, feel free to drop me a PM.

 

[dibblebill]

And here's where I find myself butting heads with almost anybody, especially other libertarians.

Who owns the actual servers, routers, etc. that the internet passes through? Do you? No. If you did, then YOU would get to decide who puts data through them. Is the idea of "net neutrality" nice? No doubt. I love the idea. But to do so, you have to openly admit you're opposed to any private ownership of DNS servers, internet backbone infrastructure, etc. Why? Because you're taking these things, which belong to private (or publicly traded) companies, were bought and paid for by them, and they still own, and telling them, "You can't use these how you see fit." It'd be like me coming into your car and telling you exactly which roads to take to work, which cars you can pass, which you can't, etc. And I know loads of people would call that invasive and a government takeover. But it's not a takeover when its a big company? This is about as bad as XDA on the topic of software theft. "Piracy is bad, mmkay? But we will only broach the subject when small-time developers are a victim. We also will just blithely roll on past about software patents until a small-time developer is a victim."

 

[copestag]

It'd be like me coming into your car and telling you exactly which roads to take to work, which cars you can pass, which you can't, etc.

while I agree with you that conservatively we shouldnt be telling private enterprise what to do with their property....... in this case the lack of net neutrality creates a defacto monopoly

a better situational analogy would be to say that without net neutrality:

it would be like you can drive your car anywhere you want to go...... however since road maintenance is done by the county...... if you want to enter our county you have to pay a driving fee


since this is what it really all about...... company A owns an ISP and a video streaming service....... company B owns and ISP and a video streaming service

net neutrality means you can watch streaming service A even if youre on ISP B..... no problems (this is what we currently have)

by ridding of net neutrality they are going to allow ISP B to charge streaming service A for the right to send traffic to their ISP

next it will be "we arent affiliate with google, we are affiliated with bing...... if you want to use google as your search engine we have to charge you a fee"

"our ISP prefers you use chrome instead of firefox...... if you want to browse using firefox we have to charge you a fee"

"the CEO of this company doesnt like regular porn.... if you want to crank it has to be to gay midget beastiality porn or we have to charge you a fee"

see the problem?

and although this would normally be a case where you would say let the market dictate the terms....... if enough people dont like paying fees they will drive the ISP or server owners out of business...... in this case its not possible..... as I said earlier..... defacto monopoly......... many if not most people in America dont have the option to simply switch to an ISP they prefer...... and we certainly dont have any options on which route our traffic takes when we load a website

enter any web address into your browser...... then try to tell the browser exactly which route to take across the internet to avoid paying fees...... not gonna happen

 

[dibblebill]

while I agree with you that conservatively we shouldnt be telling private enterprise what to do with their property....... in this case the lack of net neutrality creates a defacto monopoly

a better situational analogy would be to say that without net neutrality:

it would be like you can drive your car anywhere you want to go...... however since road maintenance is done by the county...... if you want to enter our county you have to pay a driving fee


since this is what it really all about...... company A owns an ISP and a video streaming service....... company B owns and ISP and a video streaming service

net neutrality means you can watch streaming service A even if youre on ISP B..... no problems (this is what we currently have)

by ridding of net neutrality they are going to allow ISP B to charge streaming service A for the right to send traffic to their ISP

next it will be "we arent affiliate with google, we are affiliated with bing...... if you want to use google as your search engine we have to charge you a fee"

"our ISP prefers you use chrome instead of firefox...... if you want to browse using firefox we have to charge you a fee"

"the CEO of this company doesnt like regular porn.... if you want to crank it has to be to gay midget beastiality porn or we have to charge you a fee"

see the problem?

and although this would normally be a case where you would say let the market dictate the terms....... if enough people dont like paying fees they will drive the ISP or server owners out of business...... in this case its not possible..... as I said earlier..... defacto monopoly......... many if not most people in America dont have the option to simply switch to an ISP they prefer...... and we certainly dont have any options on which route our traffic takes when we load a website

enter any web address into your browser...... then try to tell the browser exactly which route to take across the internet to avoid paying fees...... not gonna happen

Thing is, these situations are created by government regulation to begin with, regarding limitations on how many ISPs can operate in a given area. Local governments in my area frequently allow only one cable Internet provider per town, for example. Perhaps we should examine the laws that lead to this situation

 

[copestag]

I wholeheartedly agree...... if theres some regulation that prevents competition and limits peoples choices, that should be looked at...... these type of regulations are often created in the name of preventing monopolies yet almost always create a monopoly

in regards to removing net neutrality... theres an old saying...... 2 wrongs do not make a right (of course 3 lefts do and this is all lefty)

consumer choice and fair market principles should always be top priority in any type of government involvement over business

which is exactly why removing net neutrality would be a horrendous decision

this benefits the consumer in no way whatsoever...... it only serves to create a de facto monopoly..... or actually further harden the already created monopolies

it allows the companies to remove all choice from the consumer over what would normally be freely available to them

of course the ISP side of the argument is two-fold..... A) they are losing potential profit by allowing the competing services to use their bandwidth when if customers chose their product they would earn money... and B) by allowing competitors on their bandwidth it impedes the amount of bandwidth available to their customers

B) is ridiculous...... since its their customers choosing the competitions services that use the bandwidth....... customers are getting what they pay for - bandwidth

A) is monopolistic at best....... create a better product and the market will make you a winner...... dont rely on handouts from the govt to make your crappy product succeed

so should there be an examination of regulation that creates monopolies?... absolutely

should we further regulate the industry which only serves to benefit the business and removes the little freedom of choice the consumer has?... absolutely not

 

[dibblebill]

No, it's not good to remove consumer choice, but that's why this situation exists in the first place- with a combination of privatized internet backbone and laws restricting competition between companies in local jurisdictions, you're stuck with no choice and have to put up with whatever the ISP's want to do, cable moreso than DLS/Dial-up (don't laugh at DSL- I like my DSL internet).

I think this situation would never arise if it weren't for the government in the first place, blocking ISP's from coming in to take another's customers. Then, you COULD get upstarts who go "Hey, I don't have a 'premium fastlane', come sign up!". Of course, that could all be wistful thinking, too

 

[SiempreTuna]

The problem appears to be the same old thing: there's a revolving door between the ISPs and the FCC: the ISPs see a nice fat cash stream in selling faster access to rich companies so when they have their people in 'helping' the FCC, they have them do everything they can to get Net Neutrality killed.

Current internet giants like Amazon and Google are of course, really happy to pay for high speed access. If they're allowed to get away with that, how long before they're paying (by pushing up the price) to throttle internet access for any nacent competition? That would be like Fedex being able to indirectly increase the price of road tolls to a level that other, smaller companies couldn't afford to pay.

Removing Net Neutrality is simple profiteering by the ISPs and totally contrary to the interests of their private customers and to companies who require fair access to the web. Governments need to realise that the Internet is a utility - like electricity and gas - and regulate it to protect customers' interests, not the ISPs (not that it's likely to happen in the US which recent studies have shown is now an oligarchy due to the undue influence of money on law makers - see here, here, here and any number of other places).

It's not like the ISPs are not being paid well for the use of their infrastructure already: US ISPs currently charge 3000% of costs (already arguably monopolistic pricing), most utilities charge around 105%.

 

[dibblebill]

Considering that they only got that way through paying off the government in the first place, and through force of law keeping out competitors/etc, I'm failing to see how more government is the solution. Government was the issue in the first place, allowing ISP's to easily place geographic limitations on competitors and to carve up whatever piece of profit they'd like. The solution to me would be to allow other companies to actually compete in a given area WITHOUT having to pay off local governments. Of course, that also assumes the American populace are capable of ever thinking for themselves and stop voting along party lines.

 

[SiempreTuna]

The issue is not more government or less, the issue is getting government to work as it should rather have it corrupted by money from big business.

What you have here are the ISPs trying - successfully - to maximise profit by selling out their customers and big internet business trying - successfully - to fix the market in their favour. They are managing to do this because they are able to bribe / lobby (different words for the same thing) government.

Government needs to work properly in favour of the people who elect it instead of the rich corporations it currently favours (with the conivance of the Supreme Court). This - as the studies I pointed to show - is apparently no longer possible in the USA. Basically, the studies show that the US effectively run by oligarchs, just like say, Russia, China or South Korea.

Sadly, we're headed in the exact same direction here in the UK.

 

[dibblebill]

I didn't disagree with your studies- the US has been like that for decades.

 

[Gmash]

The first hurdle to killing net neutrality has been cleared...

FCC vote: Net neutrality with a ‘fast lane’ - Brooks Boliek and Jessica Meyers - POLITICO.com

Passions about the future of the Internet
were running high Thursday as the FCC
approved Chairman Tom Wheeler’s
controversial net neutrality proposal — with
critics saying it could lead to a world of
online haves and have-nots.
Net neutrality refers to the principle that
Internet providers should not block or slow
certain websites. But Wheeler’s proposal has
sparked a firestorm for allowing providers
like AT&T and Verizon to charge companies
like Google and Facebook for faster delivery
of their content. That has many asking if the
final rule will actually amount to true net
neutrality. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay
Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said the “American
people do not care what magic words the
FCC uses to assert its authority” in a bid to
keep the Web “free and open.” Rockefeller
said he’s “glad that all options are on the
table,” including the possibility that the FCC
could treat broadband as a utility.
But Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy
(D-Vt.) took a harsher view.
“The very essence of net neutrality is that a
better idea or service should be allowed to
succeed on its merits and not have to pay
tolls to reach potential customers,” he said
in a statement. “Rules allowing pay-to-play
deals would also harm consumers, who
could no longer be confident that the
Internet speeds they pay for are sufficient to
access the services they want.”

 

[SiempreTuna]

When I read about this last week, all the articles stated that this was now open for comment .. but I couldn't find where to comment anywhere on the FCC site.

One way of ensuring you get the result your backers require

 

[jajrussel]

The Internet is already full of haves and has nots. One form is data caps.

They used to be able to blame my not being able to watch a video without constant interruptions on my machines. It never escaped my notice that the problem was never consistent, but mainly existed near the end of the pay cycle.

Now my machine is no longer dependent on one provider, and if I have the data balance there is no problem if I go with that provider. Yet, the problem still exist with the other provider.

Use hulu on a daily basis, and suddenly everything slows down. Go with the provider charging the most, and there is never a problem. So, I have pretty much been opted out of video entertainment.

It is hard but I can live without NCIS and all the new programs coming out, but I still worry because the future I see says face it Joe the internet is no longer a viable option. They keep raising the price, the electric bill keeps going up, they want to raise the rent, car insurance well the car insurance has been fairly steady for a while, but it was high to begin with. I stopped eating dropped twenty pounds and got sick. Started eating again, and the car broke down. Work has told me that I still have a job but will have to take a pay cut and work in another part of the plant. Three weeks later the car is still broke down because a part can't seem to get delivered, so I am going too have to use the money that I need to pay for the repair to rent a car.

So, I figure at best I have three weeks left on the internet, and that is only because I don't have to pay for the Wi-Fi connection. Even if I manage to rent a room within walking distance of work from my point of view I am already being opted out when it comes to the internet.

I just haven't accepted it yet.