Senators opposing net neutrality rake in more campaign cash

[SummerMadness]

Senators opposing net neutrality rake in more campaign cash

Senators who have vocalized their opposition to net neutrality are taking in, on average, 40 percent more campaign cash from the broadband-delivery industry than those who support it, according to an analysis of campaign data.

The data (XLSX)—a Maplight analysis of campaign contributions prepared for Ars Technica—highlights the disparity between what the monied Washington interests want compared to the public's desires. Most of the 800,000 initial public comments to the Federal Communications Commission backed the FCC adopting net neutrality rules. The commission is weighing whether to enact regulations that, among other things, could prevent broadband providers from charging for Internet fast lanes. The public commenting period ended Monday.

Your Congress is bought.

The sad part, people that were once for net neutrality will now become opponents when they see their senators or congresspeople now in favor of tearing it down.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While I agree that it's not a good thing that congressmen are bought by special interests...

... I think the topic of net neutrality is something that needs to be discussed further so that everyone has the full picture of exactly what it means.

Net Neutrality is often described only in a positive light to portray the results of such a policy as some sort of internet utopia. There are, however, many drawbacks to this that often don't get discussed.

In essence, it's one of those topics where we only hear the pros, but never the cons.

Most people who speak on the subject typically tend to keep the focus on "access to information" as to keep the focal point of the conversation around one the concept's noble goals.

The reality is, there are valid logistic and constitutional concerns about the concept of net neutrality that need to be considered.

 

[GarfieldJL]

The problem with the proposal of "net neutrality" is who are the ones that are going to enforce it...

I don't trust the United States Government on this issue, and the International Community (i.e. the United Nations) is even less trustworthy than the politicians in Washington.

 

[Belk]

While I agree that it's not a good thing that congressmen are bought by special interests...

... I think the topic of net neutrality is something that needs to be discussed further so that everyone has the full picture of exactly what it means.

Net Neutrality is often described only in a positive light to portray the results of such a policy as some sort of internet utopia. There are, however, many drawbacks to this that often don't get discussed.

OK. What are they?

In essence, it's one of those topics where we only hear the pros, but never the cons.

Most people who speak on the subject typically tend to keep the focus on "access to information" as to keep the focal point of the conversation around one the concept's noble goals.

The reality is, there are valid logistic and constitutional concerns about the concept of net neutrality that need to be considered.

Such as?

 

[GarfieldJL]

OK. What are they?

From a technical standpoint: Different things require a different amount of bandwidth. This would kill companies like Netflix for instance.

Such as?

This would be a way for the government to be able to stifle free speech.

 

[Belk]

From a technical standpoint: Different things require a different amount of bandwidth. This would kill companies like Netflix for instance.

Bandwidth requirements for netflix are handled internal to the silverlight applet and it determines bandwidth as it streams. Net neutrality is to address the imposition of bandwidth restrictions, not implement then.

This would be a way for the government to be able to stifle free speech.

How is the Government going to limit free speech by stopping companies from prioritizing some traffic over other traffic?

 

[GarfieldJL]

Bandwidth requirements for netflix are handled internal to the silverlight applet and it determines bandwidth as it streams. Net neutrality is to address the imposition of bandwidth restrictions, not implement then.

The real problem is that government has pretty much allowed a monopoly with Comcast. If we look at all the innovation that occurred with that AT&T breakup, companies like Sprint & Verizon emerged.

That being said, some companies do use a much larger amount of bandwidth than others. Video Streaming is extremely bandwidth intensive.

How is the Government going to limit free speech by stopping companies from prioritizing some traffic over other traffic?

Look at what happened to Netflix video streaming when Comcast decided to put a data cap on them... That datacap essentially simulates what "net neutrality" would do.

 

[USincognito]

From a technical standpoint: Different things require a different amount of bandwidth. This would kill companies like Netflix for instance.

This isn't merely about bandwidth. It's about providers slowing down content for certain content in favor of other content.

This would be a way for the government to be able to stifle free speech.

Please. Do go on.

 

[GarfieldJL]

This isn't merely about bandwidth. It's about providers slowing down content for certain content in favor of other content.

Wouldn't they also potentially be subject to legal action (like lawsuits), if they try something like that, under existing law?

 

[Belk]

The real problem is that government has pretty much allowed a monopoly with Comcast. If we look at all the innovation that occurred with that AT&T breakup, companies like Sprint & Verizon emerged.

There we are in agreement. ISP's, cable, and news are getting much to insular.

That being said, some companies do use a much larger amount of bandwidth than others. Video Streaming is extremely bandwidth intensive.

They do, and they should be allowed to do so.

Look at what happened to Netflix video streaming when Comcast decided to put a data cap on them... That datacap essentially simulates what "net neutrality" would do.

Hmmm... I think we might be talking the same thing here. Net neutrality (as it was originally conceived) was to stop companies from limiting bandwidth and creating data caps. My understanding is what the FCC is now calling "Net neutrality" is pretty much the exact opposite. I am arguing in favor of the "No bandwidth limiting by companies" idea. Apologies if I mistook your position.

 

[FreedByte]

While I agree that it's not a good thing that congressmen are bought by special interests...

... I think the topic of net neutrality is something that needs to be discussed further so that everyone has the full picture of exactly what it means.

Net Neutrality is often described only in a positive light to portray the results of such a policy as some sort of internet utopia. There are, however, many drawbacks to this that often don't get discussed.

In essence, it's one of those topics where we only hear the pros, but never the cons.

Most people who speak on the subject typically tend to keep the focus on "access to information" as to keep the focal point of the conversation around one the concept's noble goals.

The reality is, there are valid logistic and constitutional concerns about the concept of net neutrality that need to be considered.

Net neutrality is a restriction on ISPs that are themselves based on a restriction as they granted an oligopoly (and a monopoly in many cases). What we should do is get rid of ISPs and make the internet a decentralized public resource (possibly based on meshnet technology).

 

[FreedByte]

The problem with the proposal of "net neutrality" is who are the ones that are going to enforce it...

I don't trust the United States Government on this issue, and the International Community (i.e. the United Nations) is even less trustworthy than the politicians in Washington.

ISPs are already quasi-public services.

 

[FreedByte]

Look at what happened to Netflix video streaming when Comcast decided to put a data cap on them... That datacap essentially simulates what "net neutrality" would do.

Net neutrality is specifically designed to prevent this type of behavior, and this case is even used as an example.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

OK. What are they?

Here are some very basic argument against it:
Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I said, there are pros and cons, here are the list of pros:
Net neutrality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Such as?

You put a government regulatory body in place to police this procedure, the opportunity for the government improperly use data is going to be a temptation for them...given the government's questionable ties to the recording industry as well as the tendency of some judges to allow "accidental discovery" in terms of evidence, it's reasonable to have some concerns pertaining to whether or not this new access to data would be used in attempts to incriminate people without proper procedure.

As it stands right now, we have a Federal District Court Judge who was a former lawyer and lobbyist for the RIAA (Beryl Howell) who has already made some questionable decisions in cases pertaining to music piracy...some so questionable that the appeals court has had to overturn them...however, can we trust the appeals court to do this every time that a judge makes a questionable call in favor of the recording industry?

From recent articles, it's pretty clear that while the RIAA supports neutrality, they support their own flavor of "neutrality" in which the FCC monitors data. If they had their way, Net Neutrality would be put in place, but with the FCC acting as a regulatory body to monitor who's doing what. Right now, ISPs are the only ones who can monitor (if they so choose) and they have the luxury of saying "Sorry RIAA, we're not wasting man power to help you try to sue a bunch of 16 year old kids for downloading some music", if the RIAA lobbyists have their way, Neutrality will be put in place, but with the FCC monitoring what people are doing.

Essentially, the RIAA getting what they want (usage of federal resources to bust people on their behalf) under the guise of support for Net Neutrality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Net neutrality is specifically designed to prevent this type of behavior, and this case is even used as an example.

When you say "prevent this type of behavior", can you further elaborate on that?

...because, in looking at the Netflix example, I honestly have no problem making people pay accordingly for what they're using in terms of bandwith.

Why should everyone pay the same amount (or pay nothing at all) when there's a handful of resources that are using close to half of the total resources?

When the floodgates get opened, who's going to step up and pay for more infrastructure?...it's certainly not going to be average internet users...I'm not chipping in to build a new data center so that Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube can utilize 99% of the newly allocated resources to boost their profits. ...and it's doubtful that they'd pay for the new infrastructure considering that they'd be essentially paying to get their competitors a chunk of the new bandwith. One would have to hope that all of the major streaming services would band together and collectively fund the new infrastructure...but why would they be on board with that when they would rather have the option to just pay for higher bandwith?

There were valid reasons for putting tiered services in place. Netflix vs. The Guardian UK website have varying resource needs and it's completely logical that Netflix should pay more since they use more.

 

[technofox]

While I agree that it's not a good thing that congressmen are bought by special interests... ... I think the topic of net neutrality is something that needs to be discussed further so that everyone has the full picture of exactly what it means. Net Neutrality is often described only in a positive light to portray the results of such a policy as some sort of internet utopia. There are, however, many drawbacks to this that often don't get discussed. In essence, it's one of those topics where we only hear the pros, but never the cons. Most people who speak on the subject typically tend to keep the focus on "access to information" as to keep the focal point of the conversation around one the concept's noble goals. The reality is, there are valid logistic and constitutional concerns about the concept of net neutrality that need to be considered.

Can you please elaborate?


Net neutrality is more than just access to information, it is also about power. The problem is that you have ISPs that are wanting content providers to pay money to then have priority over other traffic on their network.

Think of it of this way, you have a highway that everyone has equal access to. Now someone wants others to pay for the privilege to travel on that road a little faster than everyone else, which is what the large ISPs are doing.

Netflix for example has already has it's own ISP, thus it has already paid to go onto the shared internet highway. Comcast, et al want Netflix to pay to travel down the same lane as regular traffic as everything else, but will get higher priority to reach its destination a little faster. Netflix already paid the toll to get on to the highway, but now they are being told they should be paying for both ends. In the end Netflix will raise prices and pass off the higher extra expense to their customers, so now their customers are indirectly paying to go and off the highway to stream videos off of Netflix.

P.S. I have a very strong network engineering background and intimately familiar with this subject. Personally the current fight in congress is for equal access to a shared highway and not having large companies force smaller companies to pay for fast lanes, which technically isn't a fast lane just higher prioritization of traffic (i.e. They can cut ahead inline). It's not completely about access to information as you may think it is.

 

[technofox]

Bandwidth requirements for netflix are handled internal to the silverlight applet and it determines bandwidth as it streams. Net neutrality is to address the imposition of bandwidth restrictions, not implement then. How is the Government going to limit free speech by stopping companies from prioritizing some traffic over other traffic?

Wow, you summarized everything better than I did, lol...

 

[technofox]

The real problem is that government has pretty much allowed a monopoly with Comcast. If we look at all the innovation that occurred with that AT&T breakup, companies like Sprint & Verizon emerged. That being said, some companies do use a much larger amount of bandwidth than others. Video Streaming is extremely bandwidth intensive. Look at what happened to Netflix video streaming when Comcast decided to put a data cap on them... That datacap essentially simulates what "net neutrality" would do.

The data cap violates net neutrality. Do you understand that?

Net neutrality is equal access to the same highway everyone else uses. Do you want to be forced to pay extra to have priority access to a 55mph highway that everyone else uses?

Seriously, what Comcast is doing is simply charging Netflix to butt ahead in line on a 55mph highway in layman's terms. The data caps limits how much data you can transfer between networks. In essence they are limiting how much data you can consume, not necessarily free speech.

You can't win this debate, when you have engineers that deal with TCP/IP day in day out.

 

[technofox]

When you say "prevent this type of behavior", can you further elaborate on that? ...because, in looking at the Netflix example, I honestly have no problem making people pay accordingly for what they're using in terms of bandwith. Why should everyone pay the same amount (or pay nothing at all) when there's a handful of resources that are using close to half of the total resources? When the floodgates get opened, who's going to step up and pay for more infrastructure?...it's certainly not going to be average internet users...I'm not chipping in to build a new data center so that Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube can utilize 99% of the newly allocated resources to boost their profits. ...and it's doubtful that they'd pay for the new infrastructure considering that they'd be essentially paying to get their competitors a chunk of the new bandwith. One would have to hope that all of the major streaming services would band together and collectively fund the new infrastructure...but why would they be on board with that when they would rather have the option to just pay for higher bandwith? There were valid reasons for putting tiered services in place. Netflix vs. The Guardian UK website have varying resource needs and it's completely logical that Netflix should pay more since they use more.

I am personally not against charging for data usage versus data caps. If you want to treat internet usage like that of your local public water bill, then that is something I could kind of agree to, dependent upon cost.

Right now we have ISPs raking in billions of dollars in profits while not investing in their infrastructure. I find it reprehensible, because they are purposely limiting the bandwidth available to their own customers that are held captive by virtual monopolies. Once competition like Google fiber comes in, all of a sudden these ISPs begin investing in their infrastructure.

Did you know that your cable provider can provide speeds up to 912Mbps on DOCSIS 3.0?

Source:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

So yeah, let's not have net neutrality so ISPs can make sure they never have to invest in tier infrastructure unless they are forced to. Let's make sure some CEO can line his already wealthy pockets with more of our money, instead of getting better service. Yup let's support monopolies over competitive free markets...

 

[Belk]

Wow, you summarized everything better than I did, lol...

Lots of experience simplifying things for users.