Yesterday, Republican opposition in Congress folded in the face of popular support for Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality means that your ISP (Verizon, Comcast, Cablevision, TWC, etal) is prohibited from charging different rates to visit certain websites, or charging websites to get faster delivery over an ISPs network. The NN movement wants the FCC to treat broadband Internet like a public utility (called "Title II") to maintain equal access among the sites that Internet users can visit and publish.
NYTimes:
| Republicans hoped to pre-empt the F.C.C. vote with legislation, but Senate Democrats insisted on waiting until after Thursday’s F.C.C. vote before even beginning to talk about legislation for an open Internet. Even Mr. Thune, the architect of draft legislation to override the F.C.C., said Democrats had stalled what momentum he could muster. |
This is big for two reasons:
1) Although nothing is yet set in stone, NN may be preserved in some form, without some raidcal hair-brained overhaul to 'enhance' the free Internet.
2) Popular support (with 11th hour help from Silicon Valley) beat beack a major industrial lobby on the Hill in favor of consumers and entrepreneurs. A rare occurrence, to say the least.
More from the Times:
In mid-October, the tech activist group Fight for the Future acquired the direct telephone numbers of about 30 F.C.C. officials, circumventing the agency’s switchboard to send calls directly to policy makers. That set off a torrent of more than 55,000 phone calls until the group turned off the spigot on Dec. 3.
In November, President Obama cited “almost four million public comments” when he publicly pressured the F.C.C. to turn away from its paid “fast lane” proposal and embrace a new regulatory regime.
Since then, the lobbying has grown only more intense. Last week, 102 Internet companies wrote to the F.C.C. to say the threat of Internet service providers “abusing their gatekeeper power to impose tolls and discriminate against competitive companies is the real threat to our future,” not “heavy-handed regulation” and possible taxation, as conservatives in Washington say.
|
Here, Consumerist blog breaks down, in Comcast's own words, why NN needs to be preserved. In short, Cable companies, who enjoy monopoly status in many markets, are experiencing troubling trends in their overpriced and subpar tv service, including falling revenues and subscribers despite raising prices. They can only raise prices so much, and need an unregulated monopolized Internet in order to be able to raise revenues from their broadband-only subscribers.
Consumerist: 2 charts from Comcast show why NN is vital - (
New Window )
Quote:
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like you're saying, "I've got mine; fuck everyone else."
umm no
i am saying that many of those rural red staters who hate the federal government are the very ones getting subsidized cell phone and cable service courtesy of the federal government .
Ok, gotcha. That's why I prefaced my statement with the disclaimer. Of course, that fits neatly into the "no more government, but don't dare touch my social security/disability/social welfare etc."
increase the speed of their internet is in for a huge disappointment.
the federal government defined (REGULATED) broadband service as 25 megs per second
so either internet providers have to raise their speeds to 25 megs
or they can no longer call their service broadband
so umm yes government will get companies to increase the speed of their internet service
Quote:
In comment 12152288 jcn56 said:
Quote:
are valid, but I don't think they'll ever really be addressed. Just like any other service, it's difficult to justify the cost/benefit to a private provider when there's so few customers allocated to so much infrastructure.
I think high speed internet's a bigger issue for cities, where the cost of construction/laying fiber and higher cost of labor can't be justified without charging a lot more for the service. WWAN/MAN solutions have been tried a few times over with lukewarm success, and at much slower rates. I think they're going to hit the ceiling in terms of how much they can practically get done given the congestion and frequencies being used.
I agree, hence my statement that the only entity who can do such a widespread effort is the federal government. People of a certain persuasion love to say that government is useless, but (to reiterate from above) this is exactly the sort of project that needs such an entity in order to get done.
In order to try to forestall the usual suspects, how to do it, will it be done properly, will it be done in a timely manner, what will it ultimately cost, etc. are all reasonable questions, but not at this point in the debate.
Doesn't depend on how essential internet actually is? Highways and phones, etc are essentials but internet and cable? IMO, not so much.
The internet is every bit as much a "highway" as any concrete or asphalt strip. And is you think that phones are essentials, take a closer look at just where phone service is going.
The internet has become the primary information and communication source for a large portion of the population. Add in the Internet of Things and you have a far more essential service that either of your examples.
Strictly speaking, cable companies can do this, because they have monopolies over access to the market in many areas.
So new regulation by FCC (which will entrench existing regulation that telecom lobby was prepared to jettison) will make sure that ISPs cannot abuse their monopoly power over broadband Internet.
And yes, in our society, broadband Internet is considered more of a necessity (and will be more so before the end of the decade), closer to telephone and power, and further from luxuries like cable television.
You portray the internet as if it were a static entity when it's anything but. It's influence on our daily lives is huge and will only grow. Instead of trying to nitpick using mature technologies (phone - any future development is absolutely internet-centric), do some reading on what's coming up, regardless of delivery options, within the next five years.
Even if it isn't as important as electricity or telephone (yet), it is certainly more important than cable television. But companies that received a monopoly for cable television decades ago are now also in charge of broadband Internet access.
So FCC preserving NN aims to temper this, to make sure that these cable tv monopolies don't overly abuse or exploit their privileged position as ISPs.
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I'll let Zuckerberg state it for me:
"Argue all you want about the impacts of the Internet, but I don't think anyone would refute that access helps improve lives. The Internet is the highway buildout of our era. It provides new roads into medical advice and even crowdsourced medical care, educational tools, communication and job opportunities (to the tune of billions of potential dollars)."
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
I don't think this does much to increase the BB internet infrastructure.
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
Cute.
Quote:
It's well documented that the US lags well behind other first-world nations in broadband internet infrastructure.
I don't think this does much to increase the BB internet infrastructure.
Sure doesn't warrant that the providers should get to make even more money hand over fist than they already do, either. Americans are underserved in this area, and pay exhorbitant prices on top of that.
Nope. Despite nondiscrimination being the overall rule of the road, there are always some folks who don’t play along.
Comcast got in trouble for throttling subscribers’ legitimate content a few years ago, for example. Others have been accused of blocking different legitimate traffic. And AT&T, Verizon, and others have said that they would love to charge for fast-lane access if it were permissible. The problem is there.
Why is Title II reclassification needed to make this happen?
Because the old rules were able to be thrown out in court based on the technical legal arguments. One of the few paths left available to the FCC for future regulation, in that case, was reclassification.
There was nothing preventing cable tv monopolies from extending those GOVT GRANTED PRIVILEGES of a non-competitive market to broadband Internet. Title II will hopefully bring things back in line.
Consumerist: What you need to know about NN vote tomorrow. - ( New Window )
If there was some absolute assurance that the FCC would stick to net neutrality, there wouldn't be much of an issue (other than for the ISP's).
Quote:
There's lots more like this out there; all you have to do is use the internet.
Cute.
To the point, rather.
The whole point is that the ISPs were prepared to dictate net content (unless you pay a fee). Comcast signs a deal with Netflix, TWC signs a deal with Hulu, Cablevision launches their own service etc. No HBO GO on Verizon, only Showtime. No Showtime app on RCN. If you have Google fiber, you can't access blogs that are not from google-owned blogspot... that's a world without Net Neutrality.
That's the world that ISPs want. Imagine if you couldnt call your friend on the phone without paying an extra exorbitant fee because you both have different telephone companies.
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
Quote:
In comment 12152426 bbfanva said:
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
There's nothing wrong with it except it isn't necessarily true. It's true to you because your political views dictate that this is so, and because they obviously color every comment you make here.
It's like anything else, the batting average between government and business effectiveness is essentially a wash.
UNLESS that private business has a monopoly that necessarily crushes the free market.
In that case, there is no choice and there are no challengers.
Quote:
In comment 12152426 bbfanva said:
Quote:
what we need is more government involved in something that's not broken. What would be nice if the most open and transparent administration in history decided to allow the masses to actually read the regulations instead of just dressing them up in flowery language like "neutrality" and "fairness". If it's so good, why not allow the public to see it?
The same people that spy on and collect all your communications, promised you that you can keep your doctor and to lower the cost of college are now promising you that the secret takeover of the internet is good..
Some people never learn.
Take your political claptrap elsewhere. Stop fucking up a decent thread.
I don't think there is anything wrong or political by pointing out that government influence rarely improves a service. And that's certainly not limited to any one party.
"Rarely" is debatable. Cars, food and consumer products are safer now than they used to be, not because of markets, but because of governments. And knee-jerk responses to government intervention outside the context of an actual policy is political. Assuming it's wrong is just prejudice.
• Costs go up
• Service / Quality of service go down
• People go out of business
This is one area I think they are in over their heads, and with technology changing always changing at warp speed, I don’t think they can keep up.
To me it looks like they are trying to fix a problem that doesn't yet exist.
And that has exactly what to do with anything?
I agree beer man, I am expecting service to get worse.
today, for example netflix has commercial agreement with many network providers (like comcast and I believe verizon) to prioritize their packets. Many streaming content providers have these arrangements.
when you're streaming content that gets put to the head of the bandwidth queue if you will and gets prioritized.
Under net neutrality these types of agreement will be illegal and all packets must be treated equal.
So, instead of expand infrastructure and make everything work at the prioritized level, I feel like they'll lower everything to the lowest level.
quality will suffer. And if they do in fact get pressured to improve the infrastructure (which will be a long drawn out battle given that companies like verizon has already abandoned wired infrastructure in favor of wireless) then it will result in higher costs to the consumer.
I think some level of net neutrality is a good thing to the extent it removes the monopolization powers of the ISPs and encourages competition, but this level of regulation I can't see being good for the consumer.
But...and it's a big but. it's possible I don't understand the latest proposal. I'm not sure anyone really does.
So, anyone who uses it can confirm about it (costs, actual speed, terms of use)? Just curious...
I don't mind paying more for better service, but I do mind paying more so "you" can get better service.
Do you see my distinction?
I don't disagree, like i said, some net neutrality is fine, but I would hope it was simply focused on discouraging monopolies and facilitating competition - so the consumer wins, not on imposing regulations with adverse consequences.
like I feel like will happen. I don't have a closed mind on this anymore, like I did with my first post (this will be a disaster), but I'm skeptical.
From what I understand of Net Neutrality, we're talking about preserving the status quo, not the government forcing telcom to dramatically change the way they do business.
There should be no impact to the providers. If there's a blowback on the consumer in their bills, it's corporate greed at play.
From what I understand of Net Neutrality, we're talking about preserving the status quo, not the government forcing telcom to dramatically change the way they do business.
There should be no impact to the providers. If there's a blowback on the consumer in their bills, it's corporate greed at play.
It's not preserving the status quo. As pjcas pointed out, content providers can currently pay to have a certain amount of guaranteed bandwidth.
The consumers would then complain to their ISPs, who would then seek to upgrade the available bandwidth and ultimately pass on the costs of the added bandwidth to the consumers.
Not saying this will happen, but it's certainly a possibility.
So, like I used in my example, Netflix. Netflix has connections directly to the ISP's as do other streaming content providers.
those packets that come from Netflix or other streaming content providers (xbox networks, etc.) get prioritized and handled with different protocols than your average web surfer.
under net neutrality that type of arrangement (and other commercial arrangement of this nature where the ISP's promote specific content) will be illegal and all content, regardless of type, needs to be handled the same.
So, like I said my fear is that all content won't be handled in a priority manner (like streaming content), but will instead be downgraded to typical web surfer type content.
But...as mentioned a couple times, I'm not an expert, and this changes and has been worked on for years and has many different forms.
link? Seems like plenty of "big business" (Facebook, Netflix, etc.) are fighting for net neutrality, though I haven't seen a comparison of lobbying dollars spent on either side.
Not that it should necessarily matter which side the lobbying dollars are falling on.