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?
There has to be an upside for someone that it is being enacted.
Please educate me.
It is NOT in the best interest of any consumer.
I'd be less concerned with content censorship though and more concerned with bandwidth throttling/preference/content promotion.
maybe a distinction with little difference, but IMO censorship is not in the best interest of the ISPs but content promotion/bandwidth throttling is.
Allowing throttling may seem like a good idea in theory (get the things I care about faster!) - but opens up a pandoras box that will likely get exploited. And comes with risks of each of us being "served" what our providers prefer, without transparency into knowing exactly how that's being done and why.
Like I said, i'm not an expert on the subject but it would seem to me that the status quo isn't broken so why open the pandoras box?
There has to be an upside for someone that it is being enacted.
Please educate me.
The broadband providers want it so that they can upcharge companies for faster service. So, theoretically, if you're CNN, and you rely on consumers being able to see video on your website, the ISP can charge you to allow your customers to see video without spooling. They pay millions to lobbyists who have convinced politicians to play along. It isn't helped that the FCC chair, Ajit Pai, is a former Verizon legal counsel.
Given that most ISP's operate in a virtual monopoly, they could also throttle the services of content competitors, like Netflix, Hulu, etc. It also stifles competition, as startup companies may not have funds to pay for enhanced services.
Thanks!
There has to be an upside for someone that it is being enacted.
Please educate me.
Lobbyists in the big cable companies. Hard to see what else. And again, even if they don't have official monopolies, they are often functioning as if they were. Hard to see any way this would benefit anybody but the Comcasts in this scenario.
And I lean (very) slightly libertarian, so I think I am pretty objective on this.
"If it ain't broken. . . " seems the right maxim to apply here.
Viacom sent a letter to every ISP basically asking them to send money to them for each subscriber because their subscribers could access MTV.com VH1.com etc.. Viacom assumed that internet was exactly like cable TV and were laughed at by industry -- I guess the joke is finally on us.
theoretically an ISP could not just throttle but make a website inaccessible to their subscribers but make specific websites or topics inaccessible at ANY price.
In other words imagine if you had Comcast as your ISP they can make filters so that any article critical to Comcast was inaccessible to their subscribers . even if a new organization offered to pay for premium access .
just a terrible and awful proposal ..
Then, the only way to watch Game of Thrones would be to subscribe to AT&T or DirectTV.
*Note the current system isn't perfect either as there are major loopholes like zero rating, where a company like Verizon allows you to exceed your data cap if you use the Verizon Go service.
The DOJ denied it some say based on the current administration and their hatred of CNN.
So some are starting to wonder if the current administration is vindictive enough to reverse course on the net neutrality vote.
I doubt it, but it will be interesting to see.
well it's going to go to court and if the DOJ has any legit basis to block it they'll need to prove it.
I'm sometimes surprised the mergers that get allowed and ones that don't.
Staples and Office Depot I thought no-brainer, Walgreens and Rite-Aid I thought no-brainer - both rejected by FCC/DOJ (?) (Walgreesn/Rite-Aid found a loophole), but Cabelas and Bass Pro I thought not a chance, but that was approved. So sometimes I'm surprised by what is approved and what isn't.
It is NOT in the best interest of any consumer.
I'd be less concerned with content censorship though and more concerned with bandwidth throttling/preference/content promotion.
maybe a distinction with little difference, but IMO censorship is not in the best interest of the ISPs but content promotion/bandwidth throttling is.
Absolutely true the present majority in Congress continues to vote for big corporations and against the rights of the individual, sad.
That's why my initial thought is that AT&T is just using it to drum up public support for the merger.
We have choices on Long Island. Optimum or Verizon.
I feel comfortable summarizing the issue like this: Do you trust your cable company enough to give them even more control over what you can do with your internet access and the information that flows in and out of your home through those wires?
The answer, for most people, should be no given how customer un-friendly most of big telecom is.
They are super interested in this and are very involved.. Unfortunately this is not up for vote.. the FCC when they first introduced "Restoring Internet Freedom" there were tons of comments.. to the point where their site was down.. after a while when it was brought up they made changes to site to stop people's voice and limit the number of complaint filed.. even then tons of people filed comments and FCC had a problem handling them.. This is just the current government being ignorant and being run by lobbyists..
This is some serious shit, people. Do your research. Get to work on preventing the death of net neutrality. Contact your representatives. Make calls. Get your friends involved.
Battle for the Net - ( New Window )
According to industry metrics, private investment in the internet has exceeded $1.5 trillion dollars since 1996, leading to the creation of millions of jobs, economic prosperity, and a society where the accessibility of information is at a level unimaginable merely two or three decades ago.
In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted in secret to reclassify broadband internet access services as “telecommunication services” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This allowed the government to regulate the internet under the same rules designed for telephone companies in the 1930s, hampering innovation and growth in that industry for more than fifty years.
The FCC’s 2015 edict requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all data traveling over their networks equally, rather than allowing ISPs to customize service offerings with their users and compete for more customers on the basis of quality and price, even if those service offerings include treating some data differently. This essentially imposes a one-size-fits-all business model on the internet and represents an unprecedented government power grab to control and regulate the internet.
I support Chairman Pai’s desire to overturn the FCC’s 2015 mandates, which clearly run contrary to Congressional intent, to better allow Congress to dictate appropriate oversight of the internet through new, thoughtful legislative initiatives. In fact, I cosponsored S. 993, the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would scrap the FCC’s ill-founded interpretation and net neutrality mandates.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again about other issues that are important to you.
Sincerely,
Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator
Quote:
in order to have a choice of broadband providers? I don't think I personally know anybody who's not monopolized.
EUROPE!
I live in a MN suburb and have two options, more if you count satellite internet.
Quote:
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about internet regulation. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
According to industry metrics, private investment in the internet has exceeded $1.5 trillion dollars since 1996, leading to the creation of millions of jobs, economic prosperity, and a society where the accessibility of information is at a level unimaginable merely two or three decades ago.
In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission voted in secret to reclassify broadband internet access services as “telecommunication services” under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This allowed the government to regulate the internet under the same rules designed for telephone companies in the 1930s, hampering innovation and growth in that industry for more than fifty years.
The FCC’s 2015 edict requires Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to treat all data traveling over their networks equally, rather than allowing ISPs to customize service offerings with their users and compete for more customers on the basis of quality and price, even if those service offerings include treating some data differently. This essentially imposes a one-size-fits-all business model on the internet and represents an unprecedented government power grab to control and regulate the internet.
I support Chairman Pai’s desire to overturn the FCC’s 2015 mandates, which clearly run contrary to Congressional intent, to better allow Congress to dictate appropriate oversight of the internet through new, thoughtful legislative initiatives. In fact, I cosponsored S. 993, the Restoring Internet Freedom Act, which would scrap the FCC’s ill-founded interpretation and net neutrality mandates.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again about other issues that are important to you.
Sincerely,
Thom Tillis
U.S. Senator
Tillis can suck a bag of dicks.
Tillis can suck a bag of dicks.
I keep mailing them to him. Not sure what he has done with them.
Won't happen overnight. Comcast et al. are too smart for that but give it time.
Won't happen overnight. Comcast et al. are too smart for that but give it time.
There is no way this doesn't benefit the cable provider in every conceivable way. It can be used as a bargaining chip for cable companies. Don't want us to throttle your channel online or access to your website? You'll need to meet us at the bargaining table. Create additional, phantom fees and service charges. Outright force customers into paying additional for multi-tiered internet access.
Want access to BBI? That's an added fee as a part of our "sports package."
Link - ( New Window )
Net Neutrality Part 1: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - ( New Window )
Net Neutrality Part 1: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - ( New Window )
Then, the only way to watch Game of Thrones would be to subscribe to AT&T or DirectTV.
*Note the current system isn't perfect either as there are major loopholes like zero rating, where a company like Verizon allows you to exceed your data cap if you use the Verizon Go service.
Technically correct, but AT&T would lose millions in sub fees if they did that. How many people are signing up for DirecTV just to get HBO? Not enough to make up the lost revenue IMO.
Fuck them.
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
Quote:
If AT&T buys TW and net neutrality goes through, then AT&T (which owns DirectTV) can essentially prohibit all other ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, Charter, etc) from airing HBO.
Then, the only way to watch Game of Thrones would be to subscribe to AT&T or DirectTV.
*Note the current system isn't perfect either as there are major loopholes like zero rating, where a company like Verizon allows you to exceed your data cap if you use the Verizon Go service.
Technically correct, but AT&T would lose millions in sub fees if they did that. How many people are signing up for DirecTV just to get HBO? Not enough to make up the lost revenue IMO.
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.
Quote:
If AT&T buys TW and net neutrality goes through, then AT&T (which owns DirectTV) can essentially prohibit all other ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, Charter, etc) from airing HBO.
Then, the only way to watch Game of Thrones would be to subscribe to AT&T or DirectTV.
*Note the current system isn't perfect either as there are major loopholes like zero rating, where a company like Verizon allows you to exceed your data cap if you use the Verizon Go service.
Technically correct, but AT&T would lose millions in sub fees if they did that. How many people are signing up for DirecTV just to get HBO? Not enough to make up the lost revenue IMO.
It was just an extreme example to illustrate one possible effect of ending net neutrality.
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.
Perhaps our false equivalence friends can direct me to a suitable purveyor of information?
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
No clue what you're driving at. Smaller ISP's? Do they still exist? Where? In what backwoods area of the country? Internet service is monopolized by Comcast, AT&T & Verizon pretty much everywhere I can think of.
I'm not sure how killing net neutrality (or vice-versa, your post wasn't exactly clear) paves the way toward government control.
Net neutrality means, in a nutshell, all data being delivered by your provider must be treated alike. There can be no restrictions on what kind of data is delivered to you, and how fast. How does that involve a government takeover of the Internet?
With net neutrality in place and the major providers holding hands with the FCC, they are at the whims of the regulations and have to play that dance. This leads to a government control over the internet, not consumer control, as they can now regulate what the ISPs can provide. With the internet more and more becoming the general population's access to news and media, this will eventually allow the government to control what we see and hear from the media.
I understand the support for net neutrality, it is better in the short term, but far far worse in the long run. Some of you may not remember paying by the minute for internet access, but that used to be how it was done. It wasn't government regulation that lowered the prices to the consumer, it was more competitors entering the market that changed that practice.
Sure for a while the big ISPs will act like cable companies making you pay for access to content, likely starting with porn sites as they still make up over 50% of internet traffic in the US. But smaller ISP will start up offering full web access and that will force the larger established ISPs to change the practice or lose the market share, because as stated, consumers will not stand for blocking or throttling if they have a choice.
How does Net Neutrality prevent smaller/newer ISP's from entering the marketplace? What is preventing those ISP's from joining the marketplace is the cost of entry. It is REALLY expensive to build a network of fiber, or lease enough satellite real estate to serve a large customer base.
And sorry, the big ISP's are fighting Net Neutrality, unless you think Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, et al don't qualify as big ISP's.
Comcast has spent MILLIONS fighting net neutrality. Why do you think that is? What do you think they have to gain? Perhaps they want to push NBC a little more and ABC, CBS a little less... With net neutrality removed, they will be afforded that option. And with AT&T's possible merger with Time Warner...
This is exactly my point, they do not exist because of net neutrality. Competition will lead to better faster cheaper internet. More regulation means they do not have to make their consumers happy, they need to make the government happy, which leads down a bad path IMO.
Things are all sunshine and rainbows now, but the first acts of a totalitarian government is to disarm its people and control the media. Two things far too many Americans are trying to voluntarily give up. Add in all the young adults these days who are in favor of laws and regulations that can limit what we can say, makes me very worried for our future.
I had to explain the purpose of the 2nd amendment this week to my child because in his lesson about it his teacher called it an outdated act that should be removed from the bill of rights, since nobody needs a gun unless they are in the military or a police officer.
This country does not have a shared heritage, it is a country built on the belief in human rights and freedoms. Many of these freedoms are under attack and what are we when we lose those? We aren't a country anymore, we are a fractured group of people on a large piece of land.
Thanks, good article.
Quote:
No clue what you're driving at. Smaller ISP's? Do they still exist? Where? In what backwoods area of the country? Internet service is monopolized by Comcast, AT&T & Verizon pretty much everywhere I can think of.
This is exactly my point, they do not exist because of net neutrality. Competition will lead to better faster cheaper internet. More regulation means they do not have to make their consumers happy, they need to make the government happy, which leads down a bad path IMO.
Things are all sunshine and rainbows now, but the first acts of a totalitarian government is to disarm its people and control the media. Two things far too many Americans are trying to voluntarily give up. Add in all the young adults these days who are in favor of laws and regulations that can limit what we can say, makes me very worried for our future.
I had to explain the purpose of the 2nd amendment this week to my child because in his lesson about it his teacher called it an outdated act that should be removed from the bill of rights, since nobody needs a gun unless they are in the military or a police officer.
This country does not have a shared heritage, it is a country built on the belief in human rights and freedoms. Many of these freedoms are under attack and what are we when we lose those? We aren't a country anymore, we are a fractured group of people on a large piece of land.
Dude, you're way off on this. Having net neutrality or eliminating net neutrality will do nothing to foster competition. You really need to learn more about this... Why would Comcast spend millions of dollars to create more competition for itself???
I don't think you understand what net neutrality is.