As I was thinking about the very real possibility that we may lose net neutrality protections soon, it occurred to me that it may not necessarily mean the death of equal access for customers. Just because ISPs would have the ability to heavily influence or even completely determine what you can see and can't see, doesn't necessarily mean it's in their interest to do so. I imagine most people would want neutrality so I would think that would present an appealing opportunity for some current ISPs, or for new entrants into the business. Unless all ISPs are on board with imposing limitations, there's no way they can prevent people from getting equal access. Or, would the main carriers be able to limit ISPs who use their networks, thus making it easier for a small group of big companies to control the content we see?
Quote:
In comment 13700730 Hades07 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700709 Section331 said:
Quote:
In comment 13700671 Hades07 said:
Quote:
I do understand. Better understanding than most. I may not be very good at explaining it to someone else. If you don't think eliminating net neutrality will increase competition, than I fear you have less understanding of it than you believe you do. Whether that competition is ultimately more beneficial than maintaining net neutrality is up for debate.
I don't believe anyone is saying that net neutrality will increase competition, but you keep saying that ending it will, without explaining how or why. What ending net neutrality will do is potentially harm new media companies that may not have the funds to pay extra fees for "express" services. THAT will stifle competition.
Deregulation of it increases competition. If I said it will, then I mis-spoke, what I meant was it will increase the opportunity. Most are of the opinion that even if the opportunity is there, nobody will be able to significantly enter the market. So you end up with the same big companies controlling the internet access with no regulation and no competition. I am of the opinion that deregulation is the only way to get competition in the market, however unlikely; and with an opportunity someone will take it. This competition is the only way to have the consumer control on the market, not government or monopoly control.
Can you please give a specific example or hypothetical example of how net neutrality rules have dissuaded or would dissuade the entry into the market of a small ISP vs. how they'd be able to enter more easily without the rules?
Here, Ben Shapiro does a much better job of explaining than I ever could, sorry. I do believe this is the right video, if not, let me know and I will see about finding the right one. I don't have time to watch and check it right now though. #196 IS NET NEUTRALITY GOOD? Ben Shapiro and Cassie Jaye | Louder With Crowder - ( New Window )
I think the person actually talking about Net Neutrality in this video is Steven Crowder, not Ben Shapiro. He sort of drifts off into a general discussion of the evils of government intervention during the second half of the segment, but before that he raises two issues:
1. Detrimental impacts on small ISPs.
2. Raises cost of transmission across the board by forcing ISPs to charge one price rather than being able to adjust to their business needs.
For the first, some searching seems to indicate there are actually two potential issues: increasing costs for small ISPs and discouraging new infrastructure construction because of an inability to recoup costs. The search results for the effects of the regulations on small ISPs look mixed:
Small ISPs Say FCC’s Net Neutrality Order is Bad for Business
30 small ISPs urge Ajit Pai to preserve Title II and net neutrality rules
The FCC says net neutrality destroys small ISPs. So has it?
For infrastructure investment, there does appear to have been a downswing, but the impacts are unclear (i.e., is a small downswing bad enough to justify removing the regulatory regime):
Broadband Myth Series, Part 1: What Financial Data Shows About the Impact of Title II on ISP Investment
The transmission issue has a lot literature on both sides, but it all appears to be hypothetical/speculative. I haven't been able to find anything that scientifically analyzes the effect on cost. This article mentions that costs have declined, but it doesn't provide any evidence that this was helped or hurt by the Net Neutrality regulations in force (Broadband speeds have soared under net neutrality rules, cable lobby says). There are obviously other issues at play here, but I just wanted to address the ones referenced in the video you linked.
1. End net neutrality
2. ???
3. Lots of competition
Seriously, ending net neutrality is just a payday opportunity for cable companies who have contributed mightily to congress to get this chance. My own congressperson, in favor of ending it, takes among the most from the cable companies. Big surprise.
I'm not an expert and admittedly am relying upon Wikipedia for background, but it looks like these rules have existed in some form for awhile now.
Net neutrality in the United States - ( New Window )
The current status quo effectively is the middle ground. Technology, resource advantages and the natural pull of ad revenues give big companies natural edges in delivering content. So the pull to the extreme is from the side that's looking for a dramatic change, yet can't really articulate the immediate need or benefits.
It definitely pisses me off considering how much I pay them monthly. They deny it, but the facts are there and easy to corroborate, and after researching it a bit, I've found thousands of other Comcast subscribers reporting the same behavior. It wasn't always this way. Last Winter my speeds were the same regardless of if I was using an encrypted connection. But shortly after the change in Oval Office politics, they apparently started throttling connections they could not easily monitor.
If we can get a "wifi signals cause cancer" in here, that would complete the trifecta.
The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
Agree with you.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Quote:
I think the more likely scenario is they still distribute HBO to anyone that wants it, but just charge providers like Amazon even more to allow customers to access it, and thus those costs are passed on to the average consumer.
There's nothing stopping them from doing that today. IIRC, the HBO streaming on Amazon is $15/month.
I guess they'd have slightly more leverage to increase that if net neutrality ends, but I'm not sure consumers would be willing to go much higher than that.
Judging by what consumers are willing to pay for the draconian state of cellular phone voice and data plan contracts, I'd say there's room for them to squeeze more blood out.
Throw in cable TV. I have people are shelling out $400+ per month for cable, internet and cellular service. I have my family on Cricket Wireless....5 phones 5GB/Mo per phone of data....$100. Service has been fine(AT&T). What is getting expensive is internet access at home. We cut the cord 4 years ago and the cost of 75 GB internet and local TV access is up over $100 again.
I seriously tried to get his reasoning from him, but he would never say anything more than "I'm not good at explaining it". Somehow, he's good at telling us we're wrong, even those of us who interact with NN for a living.
It almost seems like he has a set of talking points about NN and knows nothing of the topic. But that could never happen!
They were unwritten guidelines in the early days of the Internet, but with the consolidation of ISP's into behemoth companies with little to no regional competition, the concern was that these ISP's wouldn't adhere to those guidelines.
About 30 websites generate about half the Internet traffic. Before net neutrality happened (about 2 years ago) the large websites and the ISP's got together and negotiated a solution to both their problems. They created things called peering. The large website (Google, Facebook etc) moved their routers/servers into the ISP's giving them direct access to the end user. Taking Google/Facebook etc traffic off the backbone. Thus freeing up that bandwidth for all the other traffic.
These companies did what all freely run businesses do. They both had an issue. They sat down and negotiated a solution that works for both. That's the free market doing what it does.
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
They haven't done it for two reasons:
1) All of the streaming services today (with the possible exception of Netflix) didn't really exist and/or didn't achieve such heights in popularity as they do now. Nowadays (and I forget the exact figure, so don't hold me to this), at least half of TV/movie viewers get their content through streaming resources.
2) Cable companies and entertainment companies weren't one and the same. Now there's a very real and dangerous reason to allow some content through freely and prohibit other content: direct competition/promotion and bargaining chips for delivery of content.
About 30 websites generate about half the Internet traffic. Before net neutrality happened (about 2 years ago) the large websites and the ISP's got together and negotiated a solution to both their problems. They created things called peering. The large website (Google, Facebook etc) moved their routers/servers into the ISP's giving them direct access to the end user. Taking Google/Facebook etc traffic off the backbone. Thus freeing up that bandwidth for all the other traffic.
These companies did what all freely run businesses do. They both had an issue. They sat down and negotiated a solution that works for both. That's the free market doing what it does.
And I have one question about Filthy's ad from above. From the start of the Internet to about 2 years ago the ISP where free to do just that. Why didn't they then and why would they do that now?
I don't think you can draw the conclusions you're making from that article without addressing the other (arguably bigger) point it's making. That the ISPs are growing large enough to distort the market on their own. If I'm understanding the logic in the article, net neutrality is like a band-aid on a bigger problem that should more properly be addressed by regulations and/or legislation to foster competition among ISPs. So scrapping the former isn't an advisable policy move unless you also include the latter.
To address the ISP competition issues, the article proposes requiring free access among ISPs to all infrastructure. I'm not sure if they are advocating separating the infrastructure ownership from the ISPs or forcing large ISPs to allow smaller ones to have free access to their existing infrastructure. In either case, the article's point doesn't seem to be that we should just scrap net neutrality and let the free market decide.
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
Quote:
Truly. Unless you really think cable companies have your best interest at heart.The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Not true. Net neutrality was put in place about two years ago. They applied regulations written about telephone lines and applied it to the Internet.
Bingo! This is all a distraction.
Quote:
In comment 13700351 TJ said:
Quote:
in order to have a choice of broadband providers? I don't think I personally know anybody who's not monopolized.
EUROPE!
Yep according to Broadbandchoices.co.uk I've got the choice of 42 different providers at my address. Although in practice since there's only two main line providers (Virgin and BT Openreach) I only have one provider (Virgin who have a private cable network in the area) who can give me 300mb/s, the BT Openreach line tops out at 82mb/s. Any ISP can provide services via the Openreach line but it's FTTC and they've not updated my local cabinet yet (probably because Virgin is so common here)
And this what we in the States should be bitching about. 300mb/s! I have 10/2 and it costs me $60. I would love to have 42 options. Even if 40 of them where at 82mb/s.
local loop unbundling
right now Cable companies own the pipes and the regulators refuse to force them to allow anybody else to provide services over those pipes
if they did this then prices would drop and speeds would increase --
Quote:
Quote:
Truly. Unless you really think cable companies have your best interest at heart.The internet is so essential it must be run like the utility that it is.
This is an area where all of us should be able to agree- whixh would feel really good for once.
seriously you would think that this is a no brainer - the internet has been open and net neutral since it's inception. Look at what has developed.
Why change a fundamental part of what makes internet so amazing ?
it isn't broke so don't fix it .
this should not be a partisan issue and yet it is .. SAD
Not true. Net neutrality was put in place about two years ago. They applied regulations written about telephone lines and applied it to the Internet.
As Section331 mentioned above, net neutrality existed as a default principle for most of the internet's history. With the increasing consolidation of ISPs, the FCC started down the path of enshrining the principle in its regulatory framework in 2005. The current system was created in 2015 in direct response to the DC Circuit Court's 2014 Verizon v. FCC decision that the FCC couldn't enforce network neutrality as long as ISPs weren't classified as "common carriers." So while the exact ruling that the FCC is planning to overturn was only put in place two years ago as you said, net neutrality as a guiding principle of the internet is much older.
Quote:
broadband is fairly young, comparatively speaking. Let's not say "well, why didn't they do it already," when technology has just caught us all up to the point where they could do it and, I'd like to point out, they STARTED doing it when net neutrality was put into place. Did you forget about Comcast and Time Warner throttling Netflix and other services?
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
So you're saying 2 things here: 1) Hey, they haven't charged you extra before, why would they now? and 2) because Netflix and the cable companies were able to reach a deal where they installed special equipment that shifted the burden to Netflix rather than the cable company, there's no reason all of the new companies (Hulu, CBS, HBO Now, etc., etc. and about 1,000 smaller streaming services) couldn't strike up a deal to do the same.
Sorry, this kind of thinking doesn't fly. Net neutrality has actually fostered streaming competition. Now there are limitless options for streaming and we shouldn't have to accept that, if they don't make a deal with Comcast, they get throttled or turned away.
Keep net neutrality in place. Break up the cable monopolies or go with unbundled local loop.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
We in the cable companies wouldn't charge you for functional access to specific content. Competition wouldn't allow that. Trust us...
Quote:
In comment 13701284 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
broadband is fairly young, comparatively speaking. Let's not say "well, why didn't they do it already," when technology has just caught us all up to the point where they could do it and, I'd like to point out, they STARTED doing it when net neutrality was put into place. Did you forget about Comcast and Time Warner throttling Netflix and other services?
I didn't forget at all. It lead to the way things work today. Netflix and the ISP's made a deal and created these peering agreements. Now that cost is built into the Netflix users monthly fee. I think this is much fairer than making the ISP pass the cost of all this added traffic along to all of their customers. Some that don't use Netflix. It solved both of their issues. Netflix has has much bandwidth as they need, the ISP doesn't incur the added cost for said bandwidth and the end customer gets what they need. And the end users that don't use Netflix don't see a degradation of their speeds and don't have to pay more to the ISP.
So you're saying 2 things here: 1) Hey, they haven't charged you extra before, why would they now? and 2) because Netflix and the cable companies were able to reach a deal where they installed special equipment that shifted the burden to Netflix rather than the cable company, there's no reason all of the new companies (Hulu, CBS, HBO Now, etc., etc. and about 1,000 smaller streaming services) couldn't strike up a deal to do the same.
Sorry, this kind of thinking doesn't fly. Net neutrality has actually fostered streaming competition. Now there are limitless options for streaming and we shouldn't have to accept that, if they don't make a deal with Comcast, they get throttled or turned away.
Keep net neutrality in place. Break up the cable monopolies or go with unbundled local loop.
That's not what I'm saying. They didn't charge you before because it wasn't economically a smart move. Just as it isn't now. They would lose subscribers and they know it.
As to the other sites, yes they should negotiate with the ISP as all business do. The business that know and are involved in the technology should be the ones coming up with the solutions exactly like they did before net neutrality.
As to Comcast and others that are becoming owners of the content and the bandwidth, that's a whole other question. Maybe our government should be using laws already on the books to keep that from happening.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
Quote:
why the world would be a better place for the consumer without NN. I'm totally open to suggestions.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
How about they write regulations specific to the Internet and not use some written well before it was invented?
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
Quote:
In comment 13701476 Knineteen said:
Quote:
why the world would be a better place for the consumer without NN. I'm totally open to suggestions.
In addition, when mostly major telecoms are behind such an initiative...does anyone seriously believe they are doing so in the best interests of the consumer?
Doing my best not to get political here, but one side has spent a ton of effort for years drilling into folks heads that "regulation is bad." That exactly how the propaganda being put out is being worded in this case as well. Big government just trying to control the working man again. It's bullshit.
How about they write regulations specific to the Internet and not use some written well before it was invented?
That would change nothing since regulation, no matter how it is written, is not what they actually have a problem with. This is simply meant to give money and power to the big ISP folks and nothing more. Very transparent.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Schneiderman's letter continues: "Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities.
"Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed."
Schneiderman wrote that his office found tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities "misused."
NY AG probing ‘massive scheme’ to influence FCC with fake net neutrality comments - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13701507 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Wireless will soon make this a moot point...
here is the explanation that anyone can understand .
Imagine the internet is a road - ISPs control this road now . . but there is a rule NET NEUTRALITY in place that says every car and truck on the road can have equal access and go the same speed limit as everyone else.
Some companies are very successful that used the road .. but you don't charge Walmart trucks more to use a road because they happen to be a truck from a successful multi billion dollar company.
Some of these successful companies realize they are using lot of the road so they have done deals with ISPs (road owners) to help alleviate the congestion that they are causing - making side roads or shorting the distance the truck has to travel on the road --- this isn't happening at the expense of other cars .. it actually helps other cars because it clears the main road for them to use.
Removing net neutrality will let ISP pick how much it will cost each individual truck or car to use the road.
and if it wants, the ISP can refuse to let a car or truck to use the road at all .. regardless of ability to pay .
As we all know, we Congress deregulates industry, good things happen!
Quote:
In comment 13701528 fireitup77 said:
Quote:
In comment 13701507 NorwoodWideRight said:
Quote:
This whole argument is stupid. Comcast is the only game in town where I live. Don't like it? Well, I guess you could always go back to DSL... As far as cable goes, it's Comcast or antenna.
Comcast and other mega giants have us over a barrel and they know it. Repealing net neutrality will only justify and enforce their position.
And as I stated above.....that's what we should be complaining about.
What's your preferred policy outcome to address the issue? Off the top of my head, I can think of three potential ways to foster ISP competition:
1. Regulate/legislate to force all infrastructure owners to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
2. Regulate/legislate to force ISPs that own infrastructure to divest the infrastructure, then force the resulting entities to carry all ISPs' traffic equally.
3. Have government-owned infrastructure, either at the federal, state, or local level.
Wireless will soon make this a moot point...
Ok, so what prevents the existing large ISPs from buying up the "wireless" opponents that may or may not sprout up? Wouldn't the exact same situation exist if they do?
If you can't beat them, join them... ;)
The ISP industry has seemed ripe for antitrust action for some time. If NN does fall in spite of the public outcry, I suspect that the road toward anti-trust rulings will likely be accelerated.
Does anyone here actually view Comcast as a consumer-friendly organization?