Michele Bachmann lies or is completely ignorant about Net Neutrality

[citizenthom]

I've explained this before, but it's worth repeating. Under Bush, the FCC determined that under its enabling statute, it did not have the power to regulate broadband Internet. Obama's FCC attempted to reverse that determination--in other words, it attempted to hold that the FCC does have the power to control the Internet in the same way it controls the airwaves, including content control. The DC Court of Appeals ruled (properly) that the FCC could not reverse itself to gain power it had already decided it didn't have.

Before the FCC can mandate net neutrality, Congress has to rule that 1.) it can control the content of the Internet, and 2.) delegate that power to the FCC.

Now, can any sane person here tell me why we should not assume that net neutrality is just a Trojan Horse argument for government censorship of the Internet?

 

[MattLangley]

So your neighbor downloads torrents all day and clogs the bandwidth that you share. Your ISP can't cap your neighbor because they aren't allowed to do a deep packet inspection? That seems absurd.

That is just an example I can conjure up off my head, but I imagine there will be other instances where this would be helpful. Perhaps, your computer is abiding in a DDOS attack-- your ISP needs to cap that traffic.

We could write provision like this into the bill, but as new uses for this relatively young technology emerge it may be necessary for ISPs to categorize our traffic in order to keep their networks functioning smoothly. I am not sure I want the government getting involved. For one, they respond to slowly to new threats. Number 2, I don't see this as a real problem. Any ISP that has attempted such a thing has been identified and lambasted by their customers-- and hence stopped doing it.

Is there any company actively doing this now?

Seems like legislation in search of a problem. I wonder what the finer details of the bill say. I remember several years ago we had a ballot initiative to "ban cruel traps" for hunting. Seemed reasonable, but if you actually read it there were perks for various industries and huge pay raises for park rangers. I imagine net neutrality will be loaded with oodles of other legislation. If the bill is three pages, we know it is legit. Otherwise it will just be the usual pork wrapped in a delicious blanket.

Do you have something against torrents... though many illegal files are torrented there are in fact many legal files provided via torrent. Do you discriminate the form of downloading? Just because you don't like what your neighbor is doing with their service you can control them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

With terrestrial internet that is true. Typically this is because local governments protect the one carrier and give it a local monopoly.

But you can use WildBlue or Hughnets high speed internet over satellite anywhere.

If you are suggesting Hughesnet as high speed internet, then you don't have experience with it.

They limit it under a FAP, which allows for 200MB data in any 24 hour period (I have updates that are larger than that). It does allow a period non-measured late at night, but this means I am limited to about 3 you tube videos. The latency (caused by the delay going to orbit and back) is too high to play games, to listen to music (without prebuffering the whole song, i.e. downloading, so no internet radio). In fact, the lag is so bad I cannot connect a 360 through it to update the 360's software (which lag should not drastically effect).

Hughesnet and other satellite internet providers exist, but they are far more akin to dial up than high speed internet.

 

[Sketcher]

How they know if the stuff you download is illegal? There is plenty of legal torrent on the Internet. I don't want my provider to spy on my connection and decide what I'm allowed to download or not.

If you and I can tell, and the feds and big media's hired guns can tell, then the ISP guys can probably tell. But my ISP claims that they don't do that - it makes sense, since there's so much traffic anyway. But we don't need to believe simple claims. Even if they really don't, the feds and big media's hired guns do, and they will call your ISP if they see you doing something they don't like. And then your connection gets terminated, or they get your name and address and you get sued, or even arrested (which isn't all bad, you've got to get the pedophiles).

Throttling the "worst offender" sites is simply a common sense thing to do, but even Comcast couldn't get away with throttling Pirate Bay's traffic, and this is without any kind of Net Neutrality regulation. Again, it is not profitable to do so, especially when there is competition. Though I would like to be able to purchase a filtered Internet plan from my ISP, and pay less for a more family friendly Internet such as my dad was able to do with cable TV by choosing not to buy the premium channels. I see it as adding a choice for those who want it. Right now, it's all or nothing, and I believe parents especially should have more options than that. Filtering on the home end is just too easy to get around.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The latest satellites are pretty quick- in the 3 mbit/sec range. WildBlue uses the Ka spot beams which are also are more immune to weather phenomena. $50 a month.

I'll have to look into this then. I just wish the phone company would extend the line 1 more mine to my house so I could have high speed when I'm home.

 

[WadeWilson]

Right now, it's all or nothing, and I believe parents especially should have more options than that. Filtering on the home end is just too easy to get around.

I know we've discussed this before, but, I just had a thought. What if, by mandate of FCC, the ISP sold you full internet access, and unfiltered internet has to be an option of service... Then as an additional (optional!) service, they could run it through the ISP's 'content firewall' running a net nanny on thier end?

I think that could promote net neutrality, while providing a 'kid-friendly' internet for those who want it. As long as they have to offer the unfiltered at a competitive price.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If you and I can tell, and the feds and big media's hired guns can tell, then the ISP guys can probably tell. But my ISP claims that they don't do that - it makes sense, since there's so much traffic anyway. But we don't need to believe simple claims. Even if they really don't, the feds and big media's hired guns do, and they will call your ISP if they see you doing something they don't like. And then your connection gets terminated, or they get your name and address and you get sued, or even arrested (which isn't all bad, you've got to get the pedophiles).

Because resources are so much better spent getting the pedophiles who are downloading drawn pictures to control their desires than spent to get the child molesters harming actual children.

I realize that there is need to get those who are downloading pictures of real children, but the government is getting more restrictive on drawn pictures of children being made illegal. If we don't watch their censorship, we are going to end with them making it illegal to download pictures of adults with small breast. Sounds like a slippery slope except that is what they have done in Australia.

Also, monitoring traffic via the ISP is not how much child molesters are caught online. The FBI infect certain honey pots with VERY advance malware that attaches to your computer and monitors incoming data. Once they get enough, they bust you. Honeypots normally include sites aimed at child molesters, dangerous hackers (those messing with banks/government electronics), and non-peaceful anti-government groups.

As far as I can tell, the Tor throws most of these issues out, though there is at least one hacker working on breaking Tor anonymity.

Throttling the "worst offender" sites is simply a common sense thing to do, but even Comcast couldn't get away with throttling Pirate Bay's traffic, and this is without any kind of Net Neutrality regulation. Again, it is not profitable to do so, especially when there is competition. Though I would like to be able to purchase a filtered Internet plan from my ISP, and pay less for a more family friendly Internet such as my dad was able to do with cable TV by choosing not to buy the premium channels. I see it as adding a choice for those who want it. Right now, it's all or nothing, and I believe parents especially should have more options than that. Filtering on the home end is just too easy to get around.

It would be easy enough to get around on the company end as well. Either it will be too loose, or it may be too strict and start blocking sites such as this forum.

 

[Jackinbox78]

If you and I can tell, and the feds and big media's hired guns can tell, then the ISP guys can probably tell. But my ISP claims that they don't do that - it makes sense, since there's so much traffic anyway. But we don't need to believe simple claims. Even if they really don't, the feds and big media's hired guns do, and they will call your ISP if they see you doing something they don't like. And then your connection gets terminated, or they get your name and address and you get sued, or even arrested (which isn't all bad, you've got to get the pedophiles).

Throttling the "worst offender" sites is simply a common sense thing to do, but even Comcast couldn't get away with throttling Pirate Bay's traffic, and this is without any kind of Net Neutrality regulation. Again, it is not profitable to do so, especially when there is competition. Though I would like to be able to purchase a filtered Internet plan from my ISP, and pay less for a more family friendly Internet such as my dad was able to do with cable TV by choosing not to buy the premium channels. I see it as adding a choice for those who want it. Right now, it's all or nothing, and I believe parents especially should have more options than that. Filtering on the home end is just too easy to get around.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with parental control. If an ISP was to provide a parental control system, it would be perfectly fine with net neutrality spirit as long as your are in control of what is blocked or not. The problem is when the ISP blocks or throttle without your consent. ISPs shouldn't judge what website I access.

 

[Jackinbox78]

So if they've been doing it for years on their own, why do we need a law?

Until recently, the internet wasn't mature enough to be serious competition with cable and satellite TV. Companies that want to offer Internet TV advocate for net neutrality while cable and satellite companies are against it. Without Net Neutrality, a cable company could slow down website that are not partners.

 

[Sketcher]

Net neutrality has nothing to do with parental control. If an ISP was to provide a parental control system, it would be perfectly fine with net neutrality spirit as long as your are in control of what is blocked or not. The problem is when the ISP blocks or throttle without your consent. ISPs shouldn't judge what website I access.

But it does. Let's say I start up a Christian ISP, which provides DSL-or-better performance, and I can get it to any home in America who wants to sign up. Under Net Neutrality regulation, I can't throttle hardcore pornography. Such regulation steps on my freedom of conscience. It's like the government telling a store that it must sell X product. Conscience or not, that's another step on freedom. Net Neutrality regulation essentially says that if you're an ISP, you must sell the whole Internet equally to your customers. Which sounds good until you apply the same logic to other private ventures - could you imagine walking into Family Christian Stores and seeing the Kama Sutra on the shelf because the government said "it's a book, and you're a bookstore, therefore you have to sell it"? ISPs should have the freedom to specialize their services and sell tiered plans if they wish. And there should be competition with the regional monopolies to offer customers the choices, quality, and value that we deserve.

 

[Jackinbox78]

But it does. Let's say I start up a Christian ISP, which provides DSL-or-better performance, and I can get it to any home in America who wants to sign up. Under Net Neutrality regulation, I can't throttle hardcore pornography. Such regulation steps on my freedom of conscience. It's like the government telling a store that it must sell X product. Conscience or not, that's another step on freedom. Net Neutrality regulation essentially says that if you're an ISP, you must sell the whole Internet equally to your customers. Which sounds good until you apply the same logic to other private ventures - could you imagine walking into Family Christian Stores and seeing the Kama Sutra on the shelf because the government said "it's a book, and you're a bookstore, therefore you have to sell it"? ISPs should have the freedom to specialize their services and sell tiered plans if they wish. And there should be competition with the regional monopolies to offer customers the choices, quality, and value that we deserve.

Your analogy is all wrong. They don't sell the Internet because they don't own the Internet. Here are some analogies that make sense: Imagine a phone company that would reduce your line sound quality when you call someone outside their network. Imagine a private highway that force everyone driving a Chrysler to go to 45 Miles/hour.

Imagine if a store owner had the ability to know what you are going to do with the product he sell to you. He could decide to not sell you the product because he doesn't like what I'm going to do with it. Let's say that you rent a car from Avis and they track where you are going and slow down the car because you don't use the road they recommend. Would that be acceptable? That's the situation ISP are in. They can know what you do with their product.

 

[Maren]

So if they've been doing it for years on their own, why do we need a law?

Because they haven't been doing it on their own. As I have posted (and provided a link) the FCC has had regulations requiring Net Neutrality. The providers didn't like the rules and Comcast sued, stating since they were only regulations created by the FCC, that they didn't apply to them so far as they are an Internet Service Provider. A federal judge ruled for Comcast and the case is being appealed.

The push for legislation is to reinstate the FCC regulations by giving them the force of law.

 

[Sketcher]

Your analogy is all wrong. They don't sell the Internet because they don't own the Internet. Here are some analogies that make sense: Imagine a phone company that would reduce your line sound quality when you call someone outside their network. Imagine a private highway that force everyone driving a Chrysler to go to 45 Miles/hour.

Imagine if a store owner had the ability to know what you are going to do with the product he sell to you. He could decide to not sell you the product because he doesn't like what I'm going to do with it. Let's say that you rent a car from Avis and they track where you are going and slow down the car because you don't use the road they recommend. Would that be acceptable? That's the situation ISP are in. They can know what you do with their product.

Let's say you're right about those analogies. None of them would be implemented, because customers wouldn't stand for it. Let's say several cellular or long distance phone companies decreased the sound quality of your call when you call someone outside of their network, or vice versa. You just need one company that advertises clear calls to everyone to create a market trend which corrects this problem. Similarly, with either transportation analogy, why go to Avis or that stretch of discriminatory road when you can go to Enterprise or take a different route? The Avis people and the road people would be losing some serious money. Net Neutrality regulation isn't needed for the exact same reasons.

 

[ReverendDG]

Let's say you're right about those analogies. None of them would be implemented, because customers wouldn't stand for it. Let's say several cellular or long distance phone companies decreased the sound quality of your call when you call someone outside of their network, or vice versa. You just need one company that advertises clear calls to everyone to create a market trend which corrects this problem. Similarly, with either transportation analogy, why go to Avis or that stretch of discriminatory road when you can go to Enterprise or take a different route? The Avis people and the road people would be losing some serious money. Net Neutrality regulation isn't needed for the exact same reasons.

what if all of the companies end up doing it? what if the customers have no choice?
or don't even realize it? unlike cars and things, a lot of the time people don't even know their bandwidth is being throttled, they just think its slow.

that is what the law is for, so no one can throttle traffic based on who it is going to or from, it is very simple.

do you realize how much building a network costs? especially in america? people keep repeating the claim that the local governments in places create monopolies for internet providers, but i honestly don't think they realize how expensive building a network infrastructure is.

i know a lot of people think the free-market will fix everything by magic, but they are living in a fantasy world if they think "build it and they will come" really works in the real world all the time.

 

[Sketcher]

what if all of the companies end up doing it? what if the customers have no choice?
or don't even realize it? unlike cars and things, a lot of the time people don't even know their bandwidth is being throttled, they just think its slow.

that is what the law is for, so no one can throttle traffic based on who it is going to or from, it is very simple.

do you realize how much building a network costs? especially in america? people keep repeating the claim that the local governments in places create monopolies for internet providers, but i honestly don't think they realize how expensive building a network infrastructure is.

And how much of that expense is due to existing regulations? There's permits, digging on public land, and lobbying from the existing companies to deal with.

Sure, building a network infrastructure requires investment, but it can be reduced if people want. Besides, where you have more people concentrated, you have more options. And with the development of WiMax and newer satellite service, people in the country need not be far away from options as well.

 

[wpiman2]

If you are suggesting Hughesnet as high speed internet, then you don't have experience with it.

They limit it under a FAP, which allows for 200MB data in any 24 hour period (I have updates that are larger than that). It does allow a period non-measured late at night, but this means I am limited to about 3 you tube videos. The latency (caused by the delay going to orbit and back) is too high to play games, to listen to music (without prebuffering the whole song, i.e. downloading, so no internet radio). In fact, the lag is so bad I cannot connect a 360 through it to update the 360's software (which lag should not drastically effect).

Hughesnet and other satellite internet providers exist, but they are far more akin to dial up than high speed internet.

I don't; but I know WildBlue is fantastic.

 

[ReverendDG]

And how much of that expense is due to existing regulations? There's permits, digging on public land, and lobbying from the existing companies to deal with.

yes and what is your point? that doesn't change the fact that it costs a lot of money to build network infrastructure.
its the main reason why we don't have 100 mbit connections in america, why ftth is still a pipedream for most of the us.
it is not all existing regulations or permits, its also feasibility, CTI and other things.
the us is huge after all and very few companies are willing to expend the costs to build such a thing, it is why ATT is one of the largest providers, they had a step up already, and that helps a lot.

Sure, building a network infrastructure requires investment, but it can be reduced if people want. Besides, where you have more people concentrated, you have more options. And with the development of WiMax and newer satellite service, people in the country need not be far away from options as well.

at least you can agree on the first part, the second depends on the business, the costs and the overall size of the area we are talking about, also that link just is to the curb, the overall cost is dependent on the company.

this is the problem, everything you list is dependent on where you live, you are generalizing way too much. there are options here where i live, but they still depend on ATT, because ATT built the network, they just lease lines.
would you call that a lot of options? i wouldn't.
it is irrelevant what options the future holds, if all the companies find it in their interests to throttle network traffic.

 

[Sketcher]

yes and what is your point? that doesn't change the fact that it costs a lot of money to build network infrastructure.
its the main reason why we don't have 100 mbit connections in america, why ftth is still a pipedream for most of the us.
it is not all existing regulations or permits, its also feasibility, CTI and other things.
the us is huge after all and very few companies are willing to expend the costs to build such a thing, it is why ATT is one of the largest providers, they had a step up already, and that helps a lot.

And with satellite and wireless technologies, geography ceases to become an issue. Who tries to block these services? Cable companies colluding with the government.

this is the problem, everything you list is dependent on where you live, you are generalizing way too much. there are options here where i live, but they still depend on ATT, because ATT built the network, they just lease lines.
would you call that a lot of options? i wouldn't.

So ATT built the cable TV network?

it is irrelevant what options the future holds, if all the companies find it in their interests to throttle network traffic.

But you're assuming that everybody will do something that makes no sense for them to do. Future technological innovations provide competition, which is far from irrelevant. Again, the more competition you have, the more dangerous it becomes to screw your customers like this.

 

[WadeWilson]

Twisted, did you read my post? I'm curious if that would be an acceptable compromise from the kid-friendly internet perspective.

 

[Umaro]

I still don't think people understand what Net Neutrality actually means, and yesterday I came across a good example.

My roommate and I were going to watch the new South Park on the Official South Park website. He tried to load it up on his, but was told "This episode will not be up until 5/15 due to previous contract agreements." We thought this was weird, and loaded it up on my computer instead. It worked just fine.

But what if instead of a glitch in the system, my roommate and I had both had different providers? What if Verison didn't like South Park, and would put that delay on intentionally. Wouldn't you feel a bit cheated if that happened? Sure, you could change to Comcast if you live in the right area I guess, but you'd already be hooked up to Verizon, so most wouldn't. Even beyond that, Comcast may block other things you like.

The only thing Net Neutrality does is give the FCC the power to continue doing what they have been for years.




On a site note, why are people saying satellite internet is a good alternative? They could do the same thing the ground based ones will, and it's not like a small business can send up it's own satellite.