Senators opposing net neutrality rake in more campaign cash

[kermit]

Agreed...

As I made reference to earlier, the term "neutrality" is coined and often only described in a positive light...because that word is one that people associate with "fair". However, if they named it closer to what it really was...which is:

"Operation: policing teens for downloading music using the same organization that wasted $3 million dollars of our money when they saw a nipple at the super bowl", it'd be much less likely to garner support.

I have no issues with keeping a tiered service level model. If I own a business, and have made that business successful enough that I'm in a position to where I can request (and pay for) faster internet speeds then some of my competitors, and an ISP (another business) wants to accommodate me in the interest of their own financial gain, then that's between my business and the ISP.

There are dozens of services on the web that we've all used,...and take for granted the fact that we benefit from them due to the fact that they've paid for (and been given) bandwidth prioritization.

We're even seeing some tech companies flip-flopping on the matter...
(Microsoft, Google, and Amazon)

The whole concept is that the FCC step in to regulate the internet like any other utility, yet, on the very first regulatory proposal they've made, those three companies immediately wrote angry letters to the FCC.

Gee...they say they want this...but apparently they only want the parts that don't have the potential to negatively impact their business. Big surprise...

Sounds like they want a dose of good old fashioned crony capitalism lol.

The problem with a lack of net neutrality isn't your provider. It's the other dozens of providers that handle your data along the way.

Say that you use AT&T for your provider. Now you pay for some amount of bandwidth from your facilities to theirs. Let's say that Comcast owns a competitor of yours and decides to throttle down your traffic giving their system a competitive advantage. Net Neutrality prevents that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem with a lack of net neutrality isn't your provider. It's the other dozens of providers that handle your data along the way.

Say that you use AT&T for your provider. Now you pay for some amount of bandwidth from your facilities to theirs. Let's say that Comcast owns a competitor of yours and decides to throttle down your traffic giving their system a competitive advantage. Net Neutrality prevents that.

Yes, that's a valid risk, however, is there any trend that would lead us to believe this is a problem that's actually occurring with enough frequency to get the FCC involved?

The problem with the proposed "neutrality" is that it's not truly the "hands-off" utopia that it's being sold to us as. Special interests are putting their spin on it.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Yes, that's a valid risk, however, is there any trend that would lead us to believe this is a problem that's actually occurring with enough frequency to get the FCC involved?

Well, practically speaking, there are only a handful of broadband ISP's and in many locations, there is only one, so they have an effective monopoly. Two of the largest ISP's (Comcast and Verizon) have already forced Netflix to cut deals. Comcast also got dinged a few years ago for illegally restricting access to file-sharing services.

The problem with the proposed "neutrality" is that it's not truly the "hands-off" utopia that it's being sold to us as. Special interests are putting their spin on it.

Do you have any examples other than your fear of content scanning on behalf of the RIAA?

 

[kermit]

Yes, that's a valid risk, however, is there any trend that would lead us to believe this is a problem that's actually occurring with enough frequency to get the FCC involved?

Because they can't do that now. Those regulations are being challenged hence desire to pass legislation.

The problem with the proposed "neutrality" is that it's not truly the "hands-off" utopia that it's being sold to us as. Special interests are putting their spin on it.

Such as?

I know that you work for a 2nd tier VOIP company. Your livelihood depends upon net neutrality. Companies such as yours are very vulnerable to collusion between 1st tier VOIP providers and the larger ISPs.

To flip it around. I manage an application which operates in about a $300M market. Since we came to the market fairly late we are not the top provider. But as a company we are by far the largest (our competitors combined aren't even 1/4 our size). Our competitors are single offering companies while we provide hundreds of offerings. My company could in short order become the largest offering the market by using the power of our company to collude with ISPs to throttle down our competitions' traffic. But it's far better for us, our competitors and for all of our customers for changes in market share to be driven by natural market forces such as quality, usability, stability, security and true performance.

 

[Vylo]

People do realize that net neutrality is far from government taking control of the internet, of not almost the polar opposite. It is a regulation made to keep all internet traffic treated the same. You don't get much more non-controlly than that. It ensures free speech, because you content cannot be throttle for profit or bias.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Such as? (was in response to my comment about special interests)

The RIAA...they've already voiced their opinion that in addition to the existing neutrality provisions, they'd also like the FCC to use the newly found access to monitor those who are suspected of illegal file sharing.

This becomes especially problematic when there are high ranking judges who previously worked for the RIAA as I made reference to earlier.

Now, instead of tax dollars being used for promoting true neutrality, we have FCC resources being used to try to bust teenagers for downloading music.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm actually taking a look at this video right now...seems to be interesting thus far.


The Truth About Net Neutrality - YouTube

 

[kermit]

The RIAA...they've already voiced their opinion that in addition to the existing neutrality provisions, they'd also like the FCC to use the newly found access to monitor those who are suspected of illegal file sharing.

This becomes especially problematic when there are high ranking judges who previously worked for the RIAA as I made reference to earlier.

Now, instead of tax dollars being used for promoting true neutrality, we have FCC resources being used to try to bust teenagers for downloading music.

It's good to understand the history of this a bit. When net neutrality was first proposed one of the main arguments that providers used that illegal traffic was interfering with legal traffic forcing providers to throttle traffic. Monitoring for illegal content was not the intention, but rather a response to an industry objection.

Providers have every intention of detecting and throttling illegal content regardless of net neutrality....so that argument is a bit of a non sequitur.

 

[blueapplepaste]

People do realize that net neutrality is far from government taking control of the internet, of not almost the polar opposite. It is a regulation made to keep all internet traffic treated the same. You don't get much more non-controlly than that. It ensures free speech, because you content cannot be throttle for profit or bias.

Exactly! It's hilarious to hear people complaining about net neutrality and mistrusting government. You do away with net neutrality, then you will have to start having all sorts of regulations to prevent antitrust issues. Such as the potential for Comcast to throttle Netflix and then provide their own service that works. and all sorts of other issues.

I heard a great analogy. Right now, if I pay $10 for 20 gallons of water I can use that water however I want. Getting rid of net neutrality would be like paying $10 for 20 gallons of water to take a shower, but having to pay $15 for 20 gallons of water if I want to wash my clothes.

If I'm already paying for the bandwidth, I should get to use it how I choose to, and shouldn't have to pay more or suffer slowed service because I'm not using it how my provider thinks I should.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's good to understand the history of this a bit. When net neutrality was first proposed one of the main arguments that providers used that illegal traffic was interfering with legal traffic forcing providers to throttle traffic. Monitoring for illegal content was not the intention, but rather a response to an industry objection.

Providers have every intention of detecting and throttling illegal content regardless of net neutrality....so that argument is a bit of a non sequitur.

I know providers do, and will continue to do so...however, certain interests want the FCC to take on that charge as a part of this neutrality.

So now when a 17 year old is caught downloading a new album, instead of getting a warning and temporary bandwidth throttling from the ISP, they're getting subpoenaed from a federal agency. (at our expense).