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 )
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.
Bandwidth costs to ISPs are escalating due to cord cutting. They call it "cord cutting", but most people don't actually cut their cord. They still do business with the same cable company for their internet, they just cancel their TV service.
But that means a hell of a lot more Internet bandwidth is needed by the cable company to provide all those streams. If net neutrality rules preclude charging Netflix et al for the additional bandwidth they are using, they it will have to come out of customer's pockets.
These Cable ISPs are a monopoly in most areas. There is no competitor at all, which is why only the government can make sure that the consumer is getting a fair deal.
Quote:
there will be chosen winners and losers in this issue, just as their always are. Big Business doesn't mind government regulation if it makes it easier for them and harder for their competitor.
These Cable ISPs are a monopoly in most areas. There is no competitor at all, which is why only the government can make sure that the consumer is getting a fair deal.
The government just makes sure they get a fair deal. Sometimes it works out for the consumers.
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.
Exactly what you're describing is consumers paying more for an upgraded service and infrastructure, which happens to be a side-benefit of Net Neutrality.
Without enforced NN, ISPs can raise their rates to customers and content providers without having to upgrade their infrastructure at all, bc they'll charge content providers to use the bandwidth (who will in turn charge consumers more). This is exactly what cable monopolies want.
Quote:
is consumers expect their Netflix, Hulu, etc to stream seamlessly. If those companies were paying for guaranteed bandwidth before and now have to share the limited resource with everything else on the web, then some consumers might see a decrease in the quality of those services.
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.
Exactly what you're describing is consumers paying more for an upgraded service and infrastructure, which happens to be a side-benefit of Net Neutrality.
Without enforced NN, ISPs can raise their rates to customers and content providers without having to upgrade their infrastructure at all, bc they'll charge content providers to use the bandwidth (who will in turn charge consumers more). This is exactly what cable monopolies want.
I'm not against NN, but that's BS. There's only so much bandwidth to go around and at some point, the ISPs will have to improve their infrastructure under either model.
And if you don't like it, you're SOL, because you may live in an area where your ISP is a cabletv monopoly, and there are no other options.
And if you don't like it, you're SOL, because you may live in an area where your ISP is a cabletv monopoly, and there are no other options.
What am I missing? How is NN going to change that? Does it remove Dolan from Cablevision (god I hope so)?!?
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
They do right now. After the NN rules, they won't be able to, though consumers (you) will still be able to pay more for higher speeds.
You are a consumer, so yes the ISPs would still be allowed to charge you extra for faster speeds.
But Netflix (and other companies) will not be able to pay the ISPs to guarantee a minimum quality of service as they currently can.
In other words if I use Netflix, I would get 55MBS? Or is that not the same thing?
What you are paying for is a MAXIMUM of 50 MBS. How much you actually get depends on the amount of traffic on the network. There's not enough bandwidth in the overall system to give everyone 50 at the same time.
Anyway, the deals they are talking about with Netflix aren't about the bandwidth speed to your house. It's how much bandwith Netflix gets in the large network pipes feeding the whole system. This is important because it's not just you who wants Netflix - it's thousands of people at the same time. Multiply that by 5 MBS, and that's how much bandwidth Netflix needs simultaneously going through the system's routers in order to provide everyone's streams.
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
Quote:
In comment 12152759 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
That's what she said
Quote:
In comment 12152885 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12152759 BeerFridge said:
Quote:
The lobbying dollars are pretty one-sided on this.
The Telcos are against it (or the were when I worked at Verizon and they would send us emails to write our congress person about it) the Cable companies and content providers like FB etc are for it.
This is completely wrong. Verizon is against the title II classification. Facebook is for it.
That's what she said
Sorry. Meant to say that Verizon and Comcast both lobbied against title II classification.
Can you provide a link to that effect?
Several Fortune 500 companies have reportedly lobbied for NN, including Ford, BoA, UPS, and Visa.
Not saying you aren't right, just haven't seen anything confirming that.
Pro-NN Lobbying - ( New Window )
Or not at all. Because another local cable monopoly may sign an exclusive agreement with Netflix. And because you dont have a choice of ISPs where you live, you're SOL.
you can gt satellite internet, it's spotty though. DTV used to partner with someone I forget who and now it's hughesnet.
Or consumers can get the speeds they're advertised and Netflix wouldn't have an issue. Or ISPs could stop throttling certain websites.
it might not stop exclusive agreements, but it will stop the prioritization of the netlfix, etc. packets giving their consumers priority processing and required levels of service.
Yes, especially when Verizon and others put a cap on them. Thankfully this should take care of that.
Quote:
in their house and what Netflix outputs are two different things.
Yes, especially when Verizon and others put a cap on them. Thankfully this should take care of that.
There's a price though: either slower internet performance due to the high traffic, or higher internet fees for users to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Around half of ISPs are enforcing data caps with overage charges. The other half has the caps also, but has yet to enforce overage charges.
Quote:
It'd be nice if Cablevision would tell me that my Amazon Prime won't work because my neighbor is d/l torrents while streaming Netflix on 3 tvs.
Or just charge for usage and get rid of the 'speeds up to' BS.
Around half of ISPs are enforcing data caps with overage charges. The other half has the caps also, but has yet to enforce overage charges.
Where I live I have one ISP option, the type of monopoly that you'd think would be gone long ago. They still advertise unlimited internet, unless they've changed recently. It's a joke.
I don't really understand how this is a question. The internet is absolutely a necessity at this point. The internet is information - it's pretty much the aggregate of a majority of information that mankind has created. It's pretty damn important to keep people on this grid. You would be surprised how many emergency situations arise with people who need information on how to handle said emergency, and need to turn to the internet. Other people run their phone services exclusively through their internet.
I don't understand how the second part of your comment is relevant. It seems like a justification of sorts.
They came to an agreement in Feb 2014. Apparently, Verizon was also caught rate limiting Netflix as recently as July 2014. Guess what happened immediately thereafter?
By preventing the ISPs from purposely limiting data usage from vendors, it lowers the cost of entry for new companies to enter the space. The Nextflix can compete with Netflix, because the playing field is now even between everyone. That encourages innovation. Netflix no longer would hold an unfair advantage due to having the capital to pay for better service.
2) When ISPs offer different packages to the end user, it's a pure money grab. ISPs have not figured out a way to defy the laws of physics and provide customer X with faster service than customer Y. Light travels at a constant speed. The bytes that reach my apartment, take the same route as the bytes that reach my neighbor's apartment. The only difference is the ISP is purposely limiting the bandwidth of customer Y, to justify charging customer X more money.
3) The real question is how will people adjust from paying a fixed price for Internet access to a pay-per-byte scheme. Right now, if I were to leave all the lights on in my apartment, that's my right... ConEd won't stop me. They'll charge me more, but won't stop me. Also, I can be assured I'm getting the same service as my neighbors. No one is purposely turning on and turning off the electricity into my apartment to slow down my connection, so why should bytes of data be treated any different than watts of electricity?
Quote:
of course it is. I'm asking whether it's actually an essential service as opposed to an important one.
I don't really understand how this is a question. The internet is absolutely a necessity at this point. The internet is information - it's pretty much the aggregate of a majority of information that mankind has created. It's pretty damn important to keep people on this grid. You would be surprised how many emergency situations arise with people who need information on how to handle said emergency, and need to turn to the internet. Other people run their phone services exclusively through their internet.
So for select businesses or emergency services where internet can be supplied through a variety of means, treated as a commodity as opposed to a utility. For people who run their phone through the internet, there also are alternatives. SO that's their choice.
My question and perhaps concern is that for everyday people, the internet would be viewed like electricity and heat (and I just personally do not see it that way) and ultimately taxpayers will subsidize it or provide it as an entitlement
That means the private pipe from Netlfix to Verizon, Youtube to Comcast, Amazon prime to verizon, MS Xbox one private network, etc. go away and those packets get treated like your mom reading her AOL email - no prioritization.
So, why do people assume that's a good thing?
I think it makes sense to prioritize streaming content when priority makes a difference to your usage/the consumer.
I'm not convinced treated every packet the same means you get video streaming quality with every packet, I think it means you won't get video streaming quality with any packet.
UNLESS the ISPs improve their infrastructure to support that mantra. And then guess what if they do? You pay more. They're not going to foot that bill on their dime.
Do you believe netlfix will lower their prices because they no longer have to pay for a private pipe to Verizon? LOL.
Do you think hulu plus will lower their prices because they no no longer have to pay for a private pipe to Comcast? LOL.
No one is lowering anything, they're pocketing money, not going to improve service, and in the end believe me the paying consumers will pay more.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
that's my point, you don't need net neutrality you need competition. and maybe in ways I don't understand net neutrality will breed competition, but from how I understand it, it simply means worse service. consistent, but probably worse.
and as I like to caveat with this issue, it could be I don't understand it all, and I'm not sure anyone does.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
That's WHY they don't improve their infrastructure, because they don't have to. Only when they are forced to, by outside competition, will they do that.
Companies enjoy monopoly privileges both from govt grants and also from the extremely high cost of entry. However, monopoly has to be tempered by regulation. Regulation stands in for competition, and protects the best interests of consumers and public welfare.
before it was done. in favor of wireless.
those places that cannot get FiOS today, many of them never will because of the shifting in tech from wired to wireless.
Quote:
Yes, I'd imagine they'll pocket the money they were blackmailed into paying.
If only the ISPs would use the subsidies they receive to improve infrastructure. I can see why they don't, as they have no competition in many places.
That's WHY they don't improve their infrastructure, because they don't have to. Only when they are forced to, by outside competition, will they do that.
Exactly.
Pass net neutrality, classify broadband as a utility, establish a baseline for calling a service 'broadband'--which I think they've now tied to the subsidies they receive....that'd be a good start.
How many of you would be happy if the FCC wrote itself the ability to filter content?