F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

The funniest joke I've seen about this is Ajit Pai walks into a bar and there's a horse behind the counter wiping it down w

INSERT $5 TO KEEP READING

MoonlessNight said:

It's too late to complain now. Democracy is about engaging in petty political fights on social media before the vote goes through. Read the constitution.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes. Political change comes from virtue signalling on social media, not from direct action.

Nithavela said:

Look at it another way.. if the ISPs aren't going to abuse this, why did they spend so much effort and money to lobby for it?

Click to expand...

?? I don't get the impression that the ISP's were lobbying for the net neutrality. They didn't want it.

LoAmmi said:

Anyway, my point is now that there's a lot more competition for that space, you could see them favoring one site over the other.

Click to expand...

So, they came up with these rules in case someday they decided to do this? I mean that is how it is reading to me so far. That's why I feel I'm missing something.

This doesn't address the capacity issue. The ISP's were having issues with services like Netflix due to capacity - and it wasn't due to throttling the speed so their videos couldn't play. The ISP's worked with Netflix over the capacity issue at the time, because that type of service wasn't available prior. It was a new thing for both of them, and no doubt something that wasn't thought about prior.

In the past the ISP would open up another port, and in exchange the other site return some downstream as a business courtesy. Netflix can't do that, because they don't do the downstream. It was for sure a bottleneck for both.

The ISP customers were ticked, and they heard about it. Netflix wasn't so thrilled themselves, because they can't keep subscribers - and do anything for the ISP customers with capacity that is tapped OUT! You have no winners there. Not the ISP nor Netflix. So they worked out the capacity issue together. It was fixed.

I'm getting the impression that people got the wrong idea about this complex happening, and felt the ISP's were purposely slowing Netflix down...lol just because they are a big old meanie corporation and those types just do that type of thing. In reality they were giving away bandwidth, and getting nothing in return - as the current arrangement in the past with other sites (downstream was the return). So, they went to Netflix and worked an agreement out that benefits both organizations.

Since the community at large felt it was just the big old meanie ISP throttling the speeds? Creation of Net Neutrality to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe it fixes something else I'm NOT aware of, but it was based on a false premise if throttling was the reason for the 'creation'. It's not like it was the first time government got something truly wrong, because they were so arrogant they knew more than others.

I mean if I were an ISP and had to pay for regulations/fees to the government for a problem that didn't exist - yet that is what was sold to the public as the problem? I'd be ticked! It be a money grab on a bill of goods dreamed up by government themselves.

There has to be more to it than this. Throttling can be covered by law anyway, because that is anti competitive practices. lol then your in trouble with more than just the FCC!

Nithavela said:

Trickle Down Internet.

Click to expand...

You know, I really wanted to call it that, but, .... was kind of waiting for someone else to go first. =P

HannahT said:

?? I don't get the impression that the ISP's were lobbying for the net neutrality. They didn't want it.

Click to expand...

False.

Amid Net Neutrality Debate, Biggest ISPs Spent At Least $26.3 Million On Lobbying

HannahT said:

?? I don't get the impression that the ISP's were lobbying for the net neutrality. They didn't want it.



So, they came up with these rules in case someday they decided to do this? I mean that is how it is reading to me so far. That's why I feel I'm missing something.

This doesn't address the capacity issue. The ISP's were having issues with services like Netflix due to capacity - and it wasn't due to throttling the speed so their videos couldn't play. The ISP's worked with Netflix over the capacity issue at the time, because that type of service wasn't available prior. It was a new thing for both of them, and no doubt something that wasn't thought about prior.

In the past the ISP would open up another port, and in exchange the other site return some downstream as a business courtesy. Netflix can't do that, because they don't do the downstream. It was for sure a bottleneck for both.

The ISP customers were ticked, and they heard about it. Netflix wasn't so thrilled themselves, because they can't keep subscribers - and do anything for the ISP customers with capacity that is tapped OUT! You have no winners there. Not the ISP nor Netflix. So they worked out the capacity issue together. It was fixed.

I'm getting the impression that people got the wrong idea about this complex happening, and felt the ISP's were purposely slowing Netflix down...lol just because they are a big old meanie corporation and those types just do that type of thing. In reality they were giving away bandwidth, and getting nothing in return - as the current arrangement in the past with other sites (downstream was the return). So, they went to Netflix and worked an agreement out that benefits both organizations.

Since the community at large felt it was just the big old meanie ISP throttling the speeds? Creation of Net Neutrality to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe it fixes something else I'm NOT aware of, but it was based on a false premise if throttling was the reason for the 'creation'. It's not like it was the first time government got something truly wrong, because they were so arrogant they knew more than others.

I mean if I were an ISP and had to pay for regulations/fees to the government for a problem that didn't exist - yet that is what was sold to the public as the problem? I'd be ticked! It be a money grab on a bill of goods dreamed up by government themselves.

There has to be more to it than this. Throttling can be covered by law anyway, because that is anti competitive practices. lol then your in trouble with more than just the FCC!

Click to expand...

What you are missing is the Comcast (and Verizon) was actually throttling Netflix delivery to their customers, prior to the deal with Netflix going through. It was verified by a number of people doing tests, such as using a VPN over a Comcast connection (where Comcast couldn't tell it was a Netflix video). Comcast was also caught doing it with P2P traffic.

Of course, the bigger fear now is that companies will speed up traffic they own, and slow competitors. So, as an example, Comcast owns NBC/Universal -- so the thought is they'll speed up video from the services they own and slow competitors. Perhaps an even better example is that Verizon owns Yahoo, so they could ensure Yahoo searches and news are very fast but slow Google down, to help promote Yahoo.

The issue with this is that most Americans have few choices, particularly in respect to high speed Internet. Most Americans have one or two high speed Internet providers that they can access at their home -- so the "free market" doesn't work in this case. Cable companies are given monopolies in most local areas, that they were given in exchange for laying cable to the entire city. Most companies cannot purchase the necessary right of way to put cables in to run a high speed Internet service -- and even if they could, do you really want 10 different companies lines going across your property (either strung above ground on poles or below ground)? It is worth noting Google quit expanding their Google Fiber (cheap high speed Internet) because of these exact type of issues, the problem of trying to wire various communities, particularly with the rights cable companies own in many localities -- and if they don't find it worth their time, as a multi-billion dollar company, what chance does some new company have of doing it?

I hear satellite brought up, but it does not truly offer high speed data, particularly since it still basically requires a "land line" to upload data (send from your location back to their servers). I've heard some complain that people don't need high speed, but that just isn't really true. A family may have 4 people on the Internet at any given time; when you have one person watching video on a TV (possibly even at 4K resolution), another possibly gaming, you could have a third either watching video or maybe just streaming the Internet, and a forth on the Internet as part of their homework -- you need to have a good amount of sustained speed.

Cell phones you have 4 basic choices, and for most Americans maybe 2 of those networks will work well in the locations they need to use their phones -- though hopefully that is improving. The other problem is that they intend you to use your service on your phone, it isn't good for providing your family with Internet service in your home -- particularly since most reserve the right to throttle your data after you've used 20GB; by contrast Comcast's Home Internet generally gives you 1000 GB before you run into issues. Additionally, to start a new cellular network is extremely hard to do, as you need to "buy" wireless spectrum from the government -- and all current spectrum is already owned. While the government is trying to create more -- largely by moving UHF TV channels -- it is extremely competitive and expensive to buy the spectrum as it becomes available.

In essence, the issue is that the Internet, where the customer buys it, is not a "free market" but instead there are frequently local monopolies, and even where there is no monopoly it is cost prohibitive to start a new ISP. So this "free market" that they talk about keeping ISP's from throttling is a myth, as whether you are talking wireless or wired connections, it is still controlled by the various levels of government. Repealing Net Neutrality does not fix this.

Nithavela said:

False.

Amid Net Neutrality Debate, Biggest ISPs Spent At Least $26.3 Million On Lobbying

Click to expand...

Okay. Yet, they have stories all over the place claiming ISP's like Comcast, ATT, etc. have been lobbying to kill net neutrality

The half a billion dollars that Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have spent lobbying the federal government to kill net neutrality rules.

Click to expand...

Comcast is one of the biggest critics of net neutrality in its current form, since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to reclassify broadband, from Internet Service Providers (ISPs), as a telecommunications service in 2015.

Click to expand...

They lobbied against it from what I'm reading.

Goodbye internet, we hardly knew ye...

HannahT said:

Okay. Yet, they have stories all over the place claiming ISP's like Comcast, ATT, etc. have been lobbying to kill net neutrality





They lobbied against it from what I'm reading.

Click to expand...

You are very confused about this. Let me put it in simple terms.

The Obama administration created net neutrality.
ISPs have been spending millions of dollars lobbying to kill it.
They have succeeded.

Pretty sad.. the internet is our future and we're just squashing competition/innovation.

Almost there said:

This is a VERY good thing. Rather than give my opinion, I offer the opinions of those more heavily involved in the case. They are more valuable. I prefer free markets unless monopolies (like ma-bell) need to be broken up. I live in the sticks and have no cable or DSL, yet I have several options including multiple cell phone plans and at least two satellite plans to choose from. I suspect those of you in cities have many more options to choose from. Competition is what creates choices and low prices. Net neutrality (regulation) stunts growth.
There's this:
The case against Net Neutrality: An IT pro's perspective

And this: The Net Neutrality Noise Machine Turns Violent

Click to expand...

Let me respond to the points he makes

1) The net existed before regulation and good things happened.

True. Likewise so did everything else that is regulated today. When things are new there is no regulation and they tend to be rather free form. That does not mean that as they grow there does not need to be regulation ensuring things go well. We once had no laws about driving cars but as they gained in popularity it quickly became apparent they were needed.

2) There are not a lot of examples of ISP's behaving badly.

How many do we need before we recognize the danger of a lack of regulation. How many people need to be affected before we decide that allowing an ISP to decide which traffic is important and which is not is not a power we wish to bestow upon them? That we would rather all data had equal priority so that we could decide how best to use the bandwidth we pay for?

3) The government taking a hands off approach has been beneficial.

Here he has a good point in general. However I disagree with it in this case. As the internet has grown and become bigger and bigger companies are looking to profit from it more and more. Since that is the case the need for government to enact guidelines and step in on behalf of those who would have no voice otherwise has grown. I think that the government should treed lightly, but it can't be completely absent.

4) The legislation will stop people from getting services like "Binge on"

This is a service were people can watch certain video over their phone without using data. The way they do this is is to throttle the bandwidth. The issue here is they throttle ALL video bandwidth whether the user or the service had requested it or not. They then only allow certain websites to qualify for their exception from data. You can read more about it from EFF.
EFF Confirms: T-Mobile’s Binge On Optimization is Just Throttling, Applies Indiscriminately to All Video


In summery, he has a couple of decent points and a couple that fall flat for me. In the end I still fall on the side of packet neutrality.

Nithavela said:

You are very confused about this. Let me put it in simple terms.

The Obama administration created net neutrality.
ISPs have been spending millions of dollars lobbying to kill it.
They have succeeded.

Click to expand...

I think your intentions are good but you have some misinformation.
The ISPs are against Net Neutrality. You've gone back and forth.. correct in the post I've just quoted. You were claiming the opposite in this post (link)

The Obama Administration did NOT create Net Neutrality. The concept goes back, at least, to the early 00s, "smart pipe vs dumb pipe" concepts date back into the 90s.
What happened in the Obama Administration was; there were instances where the FCC took action against various ISPs for violating existing open internet, Net Neutrality rules.
The ISPs sued and won. They won on the grounds that the FCC did NOT have the authority to regulate the internet under Title I. So, the FCC under the Obama Administration reclassified the internet as a 'common-carrier' under Title II.
There were no changes in the open internet rules, just the classification of how the internet is regulated.
That all changed today.

LoAmmi said:

Is there anybody who is happy about this? Could you tell us all why you are happy about it?

Click to expand...

The only people who I would imagine to be happy about this are the ones with a financial incentive. It's going to harm the poor, middeclass, and even be an irritation to a lot of the wealthy. It may hurt internet companies who are already struggling or trying to compete with large monopolies who are already loaded. There are so many reasons this is a horrible idea that most Americans disagree with.

LoAmmi said:

Break up that system and I'd be willing to see net neutrality go because Cox would have to compete with other providers and they'd have incentive to not charge more for streaming Netflix or whatever.

Click to expand...

Net neutrality has nothing to do with limiting competition. If your local ISP has an effective monopoly, that isn't going to change with these rule changes.

With net neutrality, your ISP could not charge you more for "streaming Netflix or whatever". You paid for a connection, what you did with it was your concern.

MoonlessNight said:

For your analogy to function at all all of the places would have to be located on the same highway with the speed limits of travelers artificially limited not by their location but rather their destination. But at that point the analogy is so strained that it isn't effective anymore, and that's not really how internet communication works anyway, so the analogy is probably beyond repair.

Click to expand...

It's a valid analogy. Without net neutrality, customers pay for a level of Internet access, regardless of what they do with it.

Net neutrality allows ISPs to adjust the way they serve traffic from a particular destination. Rather than allowing you to access whatever you like at the same agreed speed you signed up to, they can artificially slow traffic from any site they like. For example, they could slow NetFlix traffic to the point it isn't streamable. They can then either extract a payment from Netflix or the user to restore the stream to a usable speed.

MoonlessNight said:

My position, incidentally, is that both Net Neutrality and the repeal of it (without any other changes) are going to lead to a worse internet. All that it changes is which specific corporations are going to benefit the most by exploiting you the most efficiently.

Click to expand...

That is simply incorrect.

In a functioning markets, profits drive innovation and costs are driven down by competition. Markets then provide a profusion of goods at the cost of the marginal supplier.

In the case of the monopolist extracting monopoly rents, there is no positive supply effect (supply is not incentivized to increase, indeed, the monopolist explicitly restricts the supply in order to extract the monopoly rent), there is no competition keeping prices at cost, and society is strictly worse off.

Net neutrality allows the content market to exist. Without net neutrality, ISPs will (and in fact DID) act as monopolists to extract rents from, you know, actual content providers. We will pay more, for nothing.

Maren said:

It is worth noting Google quit expanding their Google Fiber (cheap high speed Internet) because of these exact type of issues, the problem of trying to wire various communities, particularly with the rights cable companies own in many localities -- and if they don't find it worth their time, as a multi-billion dollar company, what chance does some new company have of doing it?

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly AT&T also tried to stop Google from laying fibre.

Maren said:

In essence, the issue is that the Internet, where the customer buys it, is not a "free market" but instead there are frequently local monopolies, and even where there is no monopoly it is cost prohibitive to start a new ISP. So this "free market" that they talk about keeping ISP's from throttling is a myth, as whether you are talking wireless or wired connections, it is still controlled by the various levels of government. Repealing Net Neutrality does not fix this.

Click to expand...

In Seattle I can choose between 3 ISPs. My current ISP is great, but if I get out of the downtown area, I am stuck with 2. Comcast and CenturyLink. Most cities out here have lots and lots of dark fibre which they are not allowed to sell. My company tried to see if we could resell the fibre but any sort of community internet is not allowed under Washington law. Even a private company leasing the fibre from the government and reselling it is not yet allowed.

FenderTL5 said:

All of the throttling, caps, tiered service, etc is back in play.

Click to expand...

Plus expect to see things like this, except for popular web sites instead of TV networks : American Spirit Media Stations Go Dark to DirecTV | Broadcasting & Cable