Net Neutrality

[Brent W]

However, many people living rural know there is a bottleneck of bandwidth in their area.

and how will repealing Net Neutrality solve their problem? The problem is lack of infrastructure. The ISPs have been provided with plenty of Federal money to expand their infrastructure.

Here is an article describing how getting rid of net neutrality can help those in rural areas.

But broadband becomes more expensive as it strains to reach distant and sparsely populated areas. It just takes more cable, utility poles or even cell towers to carry all those ones and zeros longer distances. Yet the costs are split between fewer people than in cities or suburbs.

and that is why ISPs have been provided Federal funding. Furthermore, these rural counties should start investing in themselves like so many others have and run their own cables and then lease to the cable companies.

Or should part of that bill be paid by companies that do business over the internet, the way truckers pay for roads through tolls and fuel taxes? Companies such as, say, Netflix? The video-streaming platform consumes nearly half the bandwidth of some rural communities, effectively cutting peak internet speeds by 50 percent for everyone in the area.

How many toll roads stop being toll roads after the roads are paid off? When every county in the country has access to high speed internet, will data still be discriminated against? It is ridiculous to give up a free internet and bend over for the ISPs who have already been gifted hundreds of millions of dollars to improve their infrastructure.

All this article is is an attempt at making you feel bad about billion dollar ISP corporations that receive Federal Funding while businesses like Netflix, who take no Federal money and build their business off of consumer demand will now be punished.

"The real issue isn’t if you’ll be free to surf the web but whether the federal government should dictate what rates providers can set for services. The FCC’s Mr. Pai is rolling back the Obama rules, which means restoring the status quo of a mere few years ago."

The real issue is whether 1 bit of data is the same as another bit of data and the answer is yes. If you want to be on the side of Federal money pits like the ISPs who have had their chance to expand on the tax payer dime, instead of innovative companies like Netflix and other content creators then that is your right.

I personally will never side with the nearly monopolized ISPs and wireless carriers who wish to discriminate against data.

 

[adrianmonk]

@Richard T

When we buy internet service, we buy it as a max allowed downstream/upstream with a possible data cap. Like I had mentioned in a previous post, Comcast sold me 50/10(300). I pay for this bandwidth, and I should be able to use it on any service I choose. If I go over, comcast would charge me for the overage. I am not demanding comcast reduce their rates or their plans. I just want them to consider 1 bit of data from Netflix to be the same as 1 bit of data from NBC Universal or 1 bit of data from this very website. Thats all Net Neutrality is. Nothing to do with forcing carriers to set rates.

If comcast sells a town of 1000 people 50/10(300) and cannot support the town using it, comcast basically sold you something they cannot support. Thats false advertising. Companies absolutely should not be free to take your money for a product they cannot provide to you.

From the WSJ Article

The real issue isn’t if you’ll be free to surf the web but whether the federal government should dictate what rates providers can set for services. The FCC’s Mr. Pai is rolling back the Obama rules, which means restoring the status quo of a mere few years ago.

The status quo before that is what Net Neutrality wants to set. Equal access to all services.

Most major cities have a ton of dark fibre sitting unused. Why not lease them to private companies who can provide competition in the ISP space ? Unfortunately many states (including Washington) have laws preventing use of this public infrastructure due to lobbying by the same people who oppose net neutrality.

Yes two years can be a lifetime in the tech world. However, many people living rural know there is a bottleneck of bandwidth in their area. Here is an article describing how getting rid of net neutrality can help those in rural areas. What Net Neutrality Could Mean For Slow Internet In Kansas
For a better informative article though, the WSJ editorial today 5/15, favors getting rid of net neutrality. "The real issue isn’t if you’ll be free to surf the web but whether the federal government should dictate what rates providers can set for services. The FCC’s Mr. Pai is rolling back the Obama rules, which means restoring the status quo of a mere few years ago."

Edit: 5/16/2018 16:00PDT - Fixed typo

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Utilities do offer discounts for green appliances, usually in the form of a rebate. Lots of pricing discrimination in electric usage.

But not in how the electricity itself is used, nor the price of it. Your electricity meter doesn't know whether your air conditioner is a Fujitsu or a Daikin. Your provider may charge different rates for using power at different times, and lots provide some form of rebate for purchasing a "green" appliance as you point out. But once you get it home and plug it in, it gets the same electrons, at the same price as everything else.

 

[RC1970]

Good article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

 

[FenderTL5]

Good article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

Oh good grief. There's very little truth in that article.
"Net neutrality didn’t even exist until three years ago.."
Net Neutrality has existed since the onset of the internet - day one. Net Neutrality rules were first codified under Title 1 in 2005.
After numerous challenges by ISPs breaking the rules, Verizon finally got a decision that declared the rules unenforceable by the FCC under Title 1, in 2014. The same decision indicated the rules were enforceable under Title II. So the FCC reclassified the internet under Title II three years ago.

That article is nonsense, fake-news.. and if I could use stronger language to describe the ignorance on parade in that article, I would.

Anyone doing the minimal of research, would see that even wikipedia has more facts than that nonesense.

 

[Dave-W]

What makes it bad for Republicans, not really certain?

If the Dems are for it, the Repubs HAVE to be against it; and vice versa.

Such is the polarized culture these days.

 

[Dave-W]

Most of us are for free market. When the government sticks its hands in to try and force businesses to change, that's not free market. That's government control and it's rarely done for the good of the people.

Right.

And "free market" tends to go toward monopolies. That is not for the good of the people either.

I do not see either side as good for us.

 

[Dave-W]

How many toll roads stop being toll roads after the roads are paid off?

None. IN fact, roads that have been free for decades are now toll roads. Like I-66 inside the Capital beltway. A less than 5 mile stretch can cost upwards of $40. On a road that has been there since the 1950s.

But I see no way to have both free access by everyone without interference and not be monopolized.

 

[Dave-W]

If I want to look at Christian content, I don't want some net executive trying to stop me from doing so. So, I'm for net neutrality.

But with government interference, the Fed could do the exact same thing.

 

[Albion]

If it's so great, why are only the Democrats for it?
What makes it bad for Republicans?

Edit: I suppose I should show why I'm asking and
why I say the Republicans are not for it.

Both sides claim that their way will benefit the majority of the American people. No wonder it is confusing when they see one party lining up for it and the other party firmly opposed to it.

However, it appears that Facebook and Google are set to be the big beneficiaries if the Democrats have their way...which certainly makes sense. So if you admire those two outfits and what they do to control the flow of information, support the Democrats in this case.

 

[FenderTL5]

Both sides claim that their way will benefit the majority of the American people. No wonder it is confusing when they see one party lining up for it and the other party firmly opposed to it.

However, it appears that Facebook and Google are set to be the big beneficiaries if the Democrats have their way...which certainly makes sense. So if you admire those two outfits and what they do to control the flow of information, support the Democrats in this case.

You failed to mention the beneficiaries if the GOP prevail; that would be Comcast, AT&T, Verizon et. al. and the other ISPs controlling data flow(s).

 

[Albion]

If that is true, it is a different kind of flow of information, isn't it?

The way the internet worked before the change was made only a few years ago doesn't seem too bad to me. But allowing eavesdropping and censorship of speech on the internet by near-monopoly social media companies does worry me.

 

[Goonie]

If that is true, it is a different kind of flow of information, isn't it?

The way the internet worked before the change was made only a few years ago doesn't seem too bad to me. But allowing eavesdropping and censorship of speech on the internet by near-monopoly social media companies does worry me.

Social media will still eavesdrop, and censor, it’s just that by removing net neutrality which has been around in some form for the past 15 years, you add a whole new layer of surveillance and censorship in the form of isps.

 

[FenderTL5]

If that is true, it is a different kind of flow of information, isn't it?

Sort of, yes.
As presumption: let's presume the AT&T Time Warner merger takes place and NN is eliminated. AT&T, one of the world's largest ISPs now has control of a huge sector of 'content' as well.
on the plus side; they'll be able to sell ISP service that limits you to only their content for a better rate. otoh, if you want access to content outside of their portfolio, they'll up-charge or just block it out right, slow it down etc.
the one image description (and this is OLD) looks like this:

The way the internet worked before the change was made only a few years ago doesn't seem too bad to me. But allowing eavesdropping and censorship of speech on the internet by near-monopoly social media companies does worry me.

As already mentioned, the eavesdropping and censorship on the content side is not likely to change either way.
However, it's really difficult to assess because - in the beginning packet-neutrality existed because that's simply how it worked. It was later that packet discrimination became capable, and why the FCC under GOP leadership enacted NN laws under Title 1 to begin with (2005). Verizon won a case on the grounds that those NN rules could not be enforced under Title 1 in 2014.
So, just a few years ago, the FCC reclassified under Title II for the express purpose of being able to enforce the rules that already existed.
So, the reason you haven't seen a change is because it's been a 'touchy' back and forth going all the way back into the 90s.

The ISPs want to be able to discriminate so that they can make their own products/content more robust - at the expense of any competing content or products (like when AT&T blocked Apple facetime on it's network to promote their own video chat product).
It's also the reason why you see the ISPs actively purchasing content providers. They're building their own portfolios.

 

[Brent W]

Good article on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is a Fancy Term for Internet Socialism

Oh look, another person using a word they don't understand. Fear mongering, partisan ignorance.

But with government interference, the Fed could do the exact same thing.

and if they do we hold the power to hold them responsible by voting. If we give up that power to ISPs with shareholders, we have no power. The ISPs hold a near monopoly, if not outright monopoly.

 

[Albion]

Sort of, yes.
As presumption: let's presume the AT&T Time Warner merger takes place and NN is eliminated. AT&T, one of the world's largest ISPs now has control of a huge sector of 'content' as well.

They're still subject to the usual monopoly rules, aren't they? AT&T was already broken up before the net became an issue, and then they clawed their way back for some reason I do not get.

As already mentioned, the eavesdropping and censorship on the content side is not likely to change either way.

Well, that it will change if the Democrats were to prevail on this matter is what the Republicans say. And there is no doubt about the partisan sympathies of both Facebook and Google (as well, I suppose, of Twitter), so this is probably correct.

However, it's really difficult to assess

I agree to that. The various sources that might be impartial that I have found somewhere or other seem to be saying that, if NN goes through, X might happen, but it also might happen if NN fails to go though--and that the other way around is also possible.

The ISPs want to be able to discriminate so that they can make their own products/content more robust - at the expense of any competing content or products (like when AT&T blocked Apple facetime on it's network to promote their own video chat product).
It's also the reason why you see the ISPs actively purchasing content providers. They're building their own portfolios.

I can believe that, but as I said before, I can stomach that. It is not a new phenomenon. But I am genuinely alarmed about these private companies censoring the socio-political contributions of private individuals as they have begun to do. This is a formula for controlling the outcome of elections.

 

[Dave-W]

and if they do we hold the power to hold them responsible by voting.

Not really. That just changes the person at the top; not the people in the middle or the bottom that actually carry out the day to day running of things.

 

[FenderTL5]

They're still subject to the usual monopoly rules, aren't they? AT&T was already broken up before the net became an issue, and then they clawed their way back for some reason I do not get.

One would think so. However, as a general observation, the GOP doesn't seem to worry too much about monopolies, imho, ymmv.

The various sources that might be impartial that I have found somewhere or other seem to be saying that, if NN goes through, X might happen, but it also might happen if NN fails to go though--and that the other way around is also possible.

Overall, I think consumers, the public in general, and especially smaller content providers benefit more from Net Neutrality.
Mainly because it's been the 'norm' either because of the technical aspect (in the beginning), voluntarily (thru the 90s) or by regulation (since 2005).
If it goes away, and it hasn't yet not until next month if congress does not act, it will change. I base my opinion on the nature of the violations through the years, such as the data throttling, the app blocking (mentioned earlier), tiered pricing etc.
Another challenge, is how this will effect underserved or those rural areas with no service.
I don't think ending NN helps those areas.

otoh, I don't expect the initial changes to be all bad. In fact, I fully expect that the initial announcements will be splashy public service offerings, "only possible with the elimination of net neutrality.." that most won't be able to fault.
I know that one of the large ISPs has a prioritization 'fast-lane' for emergency first responders ready to roll-out 60-90 days after the end of Net Neutrality.
No one would oppose that in principle.. but if the other stuff (previous paragraph) comes with it, will it be worth it?

 

[Brent W]

Not really. That just changes the person at the top; not the people in the middle or the bottom that actually carry out the day to day running of things.

Who are the people in the middle and the bottom, specifically and how do they get the job?

 

[Dave-W]

Who are the people in the middle and the bottom, specifically and how do they get the job?

All kinds of people. The middle and upper middle are responsible for the carrying out of policies.

People at the bottom are like myself and my wife. We do the actual implementation.

We get our jobs by applying for them. Job listings are at USAJobs.gov