Net Neutrality – For or Against?

[kaylee]

well guys, ive always been "pro net neutrality", but i really hadnt done my research until now, and guess what? i cant find any anti-net neutrality arguments that arent (a) total horseshit or (b) a blowjob for the cable companies

"conservatives" are for neutrality as far as i can see in real life... everyone seems to be, unless your name is comcast. do ANY normal people oppose net neutrality???

then i found out about this: WTF – MILLIONS OF FAKE COMMENTS?!? https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/12/06/fake-names-and-c-used-fcc-internet-regulation-debate-public-comments-includes-usa-today-tech-columni/923576001/

is this just a case of the government being bought and paid for? or is there something deeper here about freedom?

the whole thing seriously makes me want to puke. it sickens me. nevermind the fact that the few high speed providers in the US have a virtual monopoly already

who disagrees? why? lets suss it out!

p.s. i voted

[cantsin]

I was doubting the issue for a long time, too, but got convinced by net neutrality when I saw this - a telco ad from Portugal, a country where net neutrality no longer exists:

...which, in a country like the U.S., would translate to this:

Here's the background info: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan

[AaronChicago]

I've never met someone who is against net neutrality. Only bots, and lobbyists.

[Snowfun]

The only advantage of being supportive of an anti-neutrality stance is that it might - ironically -  be seen as more open and transparent? WYSIWYG. Being pro-neutrality is often only a banner for advocating ones own definition of what is “neutral”. 

[maxotics]

I haven't read the details; however, in general I see "net neutrality" as another name for artificial pricing.  There are many problems with free markets, delivering better prices and services is generally not one of them (according to the economics I've read).   It seems most people want to keep net neutrality more from fear of the unknown and hatred of big cable companies.  I haven't seen any studies, from Wikipedia, that show clearly, with evidence, how it will hurt their service or my access to it.  Certainly, things will change, but it can be for the good.

For example, if providers can charge by bandwidth than it will be easier for competitors to build network out into rural areas without worrying that Netflix is going to swamp their lines.  They can charge one amount for those wanting to occasionally browse FB and those who want to watch Netflix.  Right now, it's very easy for Netflix to raise prices, which it is doing, but very difficult for the cable companies, devils that they may be.  Why should Netflix get a free ride on someone's difficult/expensive to build out network?

I have a hotspot which I use for business.  It's part of my cell plan and I pay $20 for the device.  It gives me unlimited data, but 15gig fast, then slows down to 600K?  Why, because most who use it will end up watching Netflix.  There is no way to separate users.  There is no 500gig plan or 600K plan because they need to match their pricing to net neutrality.  It's quite possible that once they do away with net neutrality, pricing will adjust to usage and for some it will go up, but others go down.  More importantly, there will be more levels of service based on bandwidth, not on the expectation that you can use as much as you want.   With net neutrality gone, Verizon would be free to make plans based on how much network they have and can sell in different areas.  

So I guess I'm one person against net neutrality because I'm against anything where there is artificial/forced pricing on services that have wide differences in cost to produce and end-users looking for different value propositions.

One last thing.  I live in Cambridge, home to Harvard and MIT.  We have internet speed issues from phone lines, telephone poles, etc.  The highly educated citizens can vote tomorrow for more taxes and the city to build its own network.  Do they?  No.  No one really wants to pay the real cost FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR   They're rather have some private company to do it and then they can BLAME THEM and I bitch about it ad nauseum.  This is nationwide is my guess.  Net neutrality exposes this expectation of getting something for nothing.

 

 

[seku]

cantsin nails it with his post.

I cannot fathom how anyone on this site... content creators... can agree with their biggest showcases (youtube, vimeo, ...) being possible paywalled. Or they'll add a monthly limit. I also cannot see how deregulating an oligarchy of ISPs is going to do any good for customers.

Maybe i have that view because i work in IT. For myself i don't care, as i know my ways around ISP induced limitations (look up tunneling through https header packaged traffic to your own VPS) ... but frankly, you (the US) will loose so much. Not only in media creation, but also for new startups, who will find they'll eventually have to pay the big providers to even get speed or connection. That's where you are headed.

[Don Kotlos]

These are just some examples:

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

And keep in mind that an FCC report found that only a little more than one-third of the population had more than one internet provider that offered speeds of 25 Mbps or more, the FCC's minimum definition of broadband. 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

Remember how big companies fought Google fiber or other government entity from installing and providing internet?

Just one example out of many: 

https://newrepublic.com/article/102699/rural-broadband-internet-wifi-access

 Or have divided the areas between them:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16933/how-broadband-providers-seem-avoid-competition

Personally I live in the center of one of the largest cities in US and my only choice is ATT. I pay ~80$ for ~25mbps similar to the price that Google fiber is charging for 1gbit. 

Specifically for net neutrality, expecting companies to be ethical is like expecting Santa to deliver your presents.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

[maxotics]

44 minutes ago, Don Kotlos said:

Specifically for net neutrality, expecting companies to be ethical is like expecting Santa to deliver your presents.

I don't see the connection between companies "blocking" access under current net neutrality and increased prices and worse services in a world where everyone charges what they want for their bandwidth.  This is the kind of faulty logic, connecting shady business practices (which go on everywhere) to non neutrality  that makes me doubt those for net neutrality.   Again, I'm not saying I've definitely for net neutrality or against it, only that, from 40,000 feet, I'm for every business / consumer having freedom to produce / consume based on their economic realities.

Companies are NOT ethical, they're goal is to succeed in their business.  Net neutrality doesn't make companies ethical or non ethical.  Again, a faulty argument to me.  IF people really want net neutrality than the government should set up enough network so that every citizen is guaranteed a certain amount of bandwidth and any content creator can use that same bandwidth to provide content.  The current system sort of works, but you point out that much of the population doesn't have much choice in bandwidth.  My guess is they have what the cable companies and telecoms have already wired decades ago.  

The whole issue is like so much that fuels Trump supporters.  One side makes nice sounding arguments while in the real world the people outside the big cities end up with crappy Internet, health care, public transportation, etc.   Net neutrality is NOT really neutral.  It favors those close to good access, like in cities.  Or let me put it this way, having neutral access to anyone's content is not the same as everyone have neutral access to the same bandwidth.  In order for everyone to have exactly the same access, both in content and in bandwidth, the economics have to either change for private industry or the government has to step in and build it.

 

[seku]

24 minutes ago, maxotics said:

Companies are NOT ethical, they're goal is to succeed in their business.  Net neutrality doesn't make companies ethical or non ethical.  Again, a faulty argument to me.  IF people really want net neutrality than the government should set up enough network so that every citizen is guaranteed a certain amount of bandwidth and any content creator can use that same bandwidth to provide content.  The current system sort of works, but you point out that much of the population doesn't have much choice in bandwidth.  My guess is they have what the cable companies and telecoms have already wired decades ago.  

So you are arguing that ISPs should be nationalised? Not a bad idea that.

Just to put things into perspective : 10 years ago, my country was rather slow internet wise. Then the government passed a law that forced the ISPs to upgrade their network, so that the country would be very competitive. i have 200/100mbit for around 50 euro now. unlimited (they don't care about anything below 3 terabyte/month... bandwidth is cheap).

Quote

I have a hotspot which I use for business.  It's part of my cell plan and I pay $20 for the device.  It gives me unlimited data, but 15gig fast, then slows down to 600K?  Why, because most who use it will end up watching Netflix

How is that an argument? You consumed 15gigs, and then they throttle you. They do that with everyone who consumes that much, not because others watch Netflix. Blame your hegemony of providers and their hold on the market. Re-establish competition, because right now it is a cartell. Or nationalise the stuff.

As you said, Net neutrality doesn't make companies ethical or non ethical. I concur. But net neutrality is/was a safety lock that prevented unethical businesses to do even shadier stuff. Which wasn't legal before. Now it is.

[maxotics]

2 hours ago, seku said:

How is that an argument? You consumed 15gigs, and then they throttle you. They do that with everyone who consumes that much, not because others watch Netflix. Blame your hegemony of providers and their hold on the market. Re-establish competition, because right now it is a cartell

Agree.  The million dollar question is whether removing net neutrality with make more competition or less.  I don't know.  I will argue the other case that if it wasn't for net neutrality we wouldn't be where we are now.  It allowed everyone to develop their services without spending a lot of time negotiating every connection.  Anyway, it's like all American politics these days.  There are no real issues discussed in the mainstream media.  Just good vs evil

[Trek of Joy]

Stupid name - which is part of the problem, but I'm firmly in support of keeping the current rules. The changes are being driven by companies that have monopolies in many communities and are chomping at the bit to charge us more. I've been traveling around the world, we pay more and get less than many countries in Europe and Asia. Same for cell service, there are so many more companies offering service in many places outside of the US. I counted 13 providers in India - all were giving away phones and many were offering 6 months of free service at a fraction of what I pay. How I wish Google Fiber could go nationwide and put a beatdown on the crappy 50Mbps service I pay $100/mo for.

The are many issues with the elimination of Net Neutrality, another is the fact that companies like Time Warner or Comcast can charge for access to competitors of their own networks. If you live in a community that's only served by Comcast - which owns NBC - they can upcharge for access to CBS, ABC, Fox and so on. They can charge content providers for access to the network and then charge us for access to the content providers. So we'll pay more to the ISP's and more to the content providers.

And there's also an access issue, rising costs are going to impact low income households and rural communities. Ending Net Neutrality will not result in more infrastructure investment since again there is virtually no competition across most of the US. The only places we see significant investments are where there's competition. 

Cable companies also pay little or nothing for access to taxpayer maintained lands to bury their lines. Then they lobby hard against competitors being granted construction permits to maintain the monopoly. 

This is a lobbyist driven move so ISP's can squeeze more out of its customers while delivering less. All of the noise is just distraction tactics. The "we're not going to change anything" stuff from ISP's, like AT&T's claims, are just bunk. Prices will spike quickly and there's little anyone can do because there are simply no other options in most places. I don't know what the answer ultimately is - whether its regulation, creating government owned public utilities similar to power and water or something else - but allowing profit driven mega media conglomerates to have a monopoly and the ability to do whatever they want with internet access isn't the solution.

Ending Net Neutrality is simply a cash grab by ISP's and nothing else. 

[dhessel]

One if the major things that has not been mentioned is that the loss of net neutrality would allow ISP's to throttle the speed to specific sites. So a company like Amazon will pay a premium price to get a high speed but a smaller site will see it's speed reduced when it can't afford to pay off the ISP. They could decide to throttle sites for any number of reasons. Basically the big corporations will have the highest speeds and everyone else will be slowed down. It's a total cash grab and just about everyone here is against it. Surely the ones who are pushing this through are going to rewarded down the line. 

[Nrubloc]

I often see people constantly engaged with their phones and other devices as if their life depends on it, so companies better not make people to mad by throttling their internet or possibly charging different “preference” rates to some just because they may use a competing app, services or often visit certain sites that are in direct competition to the internet service providers own viewership and other similar services or products that they may also provide. Individuals who use exorbitant bandwidth outside of a fairly normal modern day “connected” usage lifestyle, should of course pay more or be subjected to some limit if it is very excessive and they are not willing to pay more based on the current system. Businesses are in the business to make money and hopefully innovate a bit, but need not be everyone’s friend. Most would understand that.

However, it has also been discussed that different possible negative methods could be used by ISP’s (especially in regions with little or no competition between providers) and ultimately implemented without some level of Net Neutrality being retained. One can not be sure of course, but for example the possible manipulation an ISP may impose on those only using “partial” subscribed services in an attempt to favor their own services/products over another companies competing product is one area alluded to previously. Imagine an ISP tracking every website and subscribed services you use (Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, Amazon, etc) over their provided/subscribed service connection and then deciding that since you only pay for one of their internet service plans, rather than some bloated reality TV, Internet, Phone package bundle of theirs, they then decide to essentially punish you for it. The large dinosaur media conglomerates merging with IPS’s is just part of that. Without Net Neutrality it would lead to more structured systems of the past and would then probably lead to exorbitant service fees to “entice” you to then pay only slightly less exorbitant fees for their bloated packages/services type of a structured system from days of olde. They could then essentially charge more and also get “their preferred” advertising sponsors/partners to market to you instead of some other platform you may use over their subscribed internet service that one may be using currently. It is not in the best interest of consumers and the ISP industry would just agree on what is most favorable to them and move on. Let’s not pretend they were ever on the side of the consumer. It has always been a shell and numbers game in the industry. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a large shareholder, works for the industry or is a lobbyist… or a politician who just got paid in some form or another. Go ahead, it’s ok to give your middle finger to the “man” every once in a while or at least feel that you still can. It is ok not to always just accept whatever the implied status quo is or something your being told to do as an only option. It is just good practice to questions things sometimes.

 

Continued privacy issues around ISP’s offering up users info to marketers or getting direct ads that can not easily be blocked coming from an ISP directly would probably be expanded as well (unless you subscribe to their other products maybe). I guess router level VPN’s are going to be more popular then. So, don't make the kids mad either or there will be hell to pay… it may not readily happen, but will sooner rather than later if what I have seen in the past is any indication. Oh, and I think that some areas or categories of both the ISP and healthcare industries in the US should be nationalized. All things in these realms are unfortunately very political it would seem. Politics aside, who is then really representing the consumer’s best interest and concerns? Perhaps not perfect, but Net Neutrality is maybe better than the other idea of absolutely nothing.

[jonpais]

Federal regulators are expected to vote to allow Internet providers to speed up service for some apps and websites — and block or slow down others — in a decision repealing landmark, Obama-era regulations for broadband companies such as AT&T and Verizon. - Washington Post, live on YT now. WTF

[seku]

heh. they don't loose much time, do they.

[fuzzynormal]

You know what?  

Yeah, it's a bit stupid and unfair.  Egalitarian is better than segregation.

But there's a silver lining.

I'll play contrarian real quick.  It's a bit of an outlier type of attitude I suppose, but here it goes:  The older I get the absolute LESS I want to deal with corporate nonsense.  When they segregate me from their mainline of "content" I'll just roll without it.  Good lord, it's all mostly a pile of nonsense anyway.  Can't stream Netflix?  Ah well.  Good, that'll save me 40 minutes looking for a mediocre film to watch and then 2 hours doing so.  

I'll just read that book I've been ignoring for 10 months.  

Seriously, the more ubiquitous the internet becomes the more annoyingly insidious.  I could use an industry imposed firewall.  I can tell you with complete honesty, if my access to the internet turned into 56Kpbs dial-up  tomorrow then I'd be okay with it.  I'd consider it a f'in' blessing.  I swear to God it would IMPROVE my quality of life, not diminish it.

Too much internet is not helping me be a better person.  Full stop.  My mesolimbic dopamine pathway has been turned into an Elon Musk hyperloop by this beast. 

Just getting off Twitter and Facebook would save me.  Seriously, I know in my bones that I'm going to be lying on my deathbed someday with this running through my head, "Jeeze, way too much time online, wtf was I thinkiiiiiiiiinnnnng... gasp...ack..."

Look, I'm older.  I lived an interesting life without this stuff before, enjoyed that lifestyle, and I kind of want to do it again, tbh.

Those with non-stop high speed don't know what they're missing.  Stop looking down at your phones!  You're wandering onto my lawn, get the hell off it you young whippersnappers.

[Don Kotlos]

Without disagreeing with the overall need to overcome our internet addiction, we have to be careful of what effect abandoning these net neutrality rules could have on the society. 

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

 I can tell you with complete honesty, if my access to the internet turned into 56Kpbs dial-up  tomorrow then I'd be okay with it.  

The problem is that SOME sites could have 56kbps and OTHERS could have 1000000Kbps. And guess what, people stay longer on sites that load faster. Now what happens when my ONLY internet provider doesn't want me to read certain news outlets? We have a very easy way of biasing and manipulating masses of people. What do those people do? Elect idiots that are getting the world closer to catastrophic event, either by global warming or nuclear holocaust. And it is not that I am being gloomy, that has already happened in the microenvironment of Facebook, and now it is allowed for any type of internet interaction. 

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, Don Kotlos said:

Without disagreeing with the overall need to overcome our internet addiction, we have to be careful of what effect abandoning these net neutrality rules could have on the society. 

The problem is that SOME sites could have 56kbps and OTHERS could have 1000000Kbps. And guess what, people stay longer on sites that load faster. Now what happens when my ONLY internet provider doesn't want me to read certain news outlets? We have a very easy way of biasing and manipulating masses of people. What do those people do? Elect idiots that are getting the world closer to catastrophic event, either by global warming or nuclear holocaust. And it is not that I am being gloomy, that has already happened in the microenvironment of Facebook, and now it is allowed for any type of internet interaction. 

That's fine and all.  What could happen and what probably will happen with the USA internet is ridiculous.   I'm speaking anecdotally about my subjective opinion about how it all fits in my life.

Damn straight people are getting manipulated every day.  There's a whole deeper discussion about free will and how our perception of that is constantly, and easily, controlled by these big biz'nezz-ez.  The ability of online companies to emotionally sway people is fascinating...and as I sad, insidious.  I no longer consider the internet a safe playground.  Haven't for about 15 years.  And it's always getting a bit worse.

Also, you can't fix stupid -- you take advantage of it ---which is why companies that want to make a ton of money turn to those people first to acquire it.

But, like I said, I could just pull the plug on it and improve my life.  What's stopping me though??

[kaylee]

hey if anyone wants to tell me they love me before the internet gets turned off nows your chance

[Emanuel]

@kaylee priceless, kaylee, priceless... (E ;-)

On 12/15/2017 at 12:22 AM, kaylee said:

hey if anyone wants to tell me they love me before the internet gets turned off nows your chance

 

On 12/9/2017 at 11:26 AM, cantsin said:

I was doubting the issue for a long time, too, but got convinced by net neutrality when I saw this - a telco ad from Portugal, a country where net neutrality no longer exists:

...which, in a country like the U.S., would translate to this:

Here's the background info: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan

I guess Brazil has been the model for the Portuguese case as well. Brazilian Oi as affiliated example amongst every single Brazilian carrier I'm afraid. Meo/Portugal Telecom former owner actually. Before the sale to Patrick Drahi's Altice (Netherlands based despite the triple Portuguese-French-Israeli nationality of their Moroccan-born Jewish founder) to be concluded for 7,4 billions of Euros for a couple of years now.

This is 2013 news (in Portuguese): https://tecnoblog.net/131671/oi-facebook-messenger-de-graca/

In a word? Business.

:-)