Net neutrality discussion

I'm very ambivalent on net neutrality.

On the one hand...
I've never found this meme particularly convincing.

I'd like separation of services. I definitely think the "everything" package would be more expensive under a non-neutrality model, but a whole lot of people could save money getting only the services they use. The main group incentived to avoid service separation are those who currently use everything, because forcing everyone to pay for services they don't use socializes the cost of the services that, say, gamers use.

Additionally, I believe in free markets. Regulating an industry is at best a very inefficient way to ensure customers receive good service, and at worst enshrines bad service so good service becomes impossible.

On the other hand...

"

DalaiLama wrote:

What was the state before Net Neutrality was enacted (back in 2015)? I recall Comcast catching a lot of flak for throttling, and they stopped.

...under threat of legal action. It's just as intellectually dishonest to say this as to say "Trump caught a lot of flack for the travel ban, and he stopped enforcing it." The clearly implied causation is a lie, because neither Trump nor Comcast give any fuck about the flack, and we're stopped by judgments.

Also like the anti-Trump rulings, the anti-Comcast rulings did not stand up to eventual appeal. In fact, the courts pretty much created the Title 2 utility concept by waxing hypothetical on situations under which the FCC's lawsuits would have a different verdict — much as the 9th circuit did in its opinion on the first Trump travel ban EO, spurring Trump to rewrite it.

Furthermore, as DurianMcgregor's link shows, ISPs haven't historically used net non-neutrality to provide separate packages, but anti-competitively to block users from using edge providers that compete with those the ISP is allied with or owns.

That's the type of shitty behavior I believe should be weeded out by free market competition, rather than illegalized. But how will free market competition weed it out if the content block is hidden or if there are no competitors in the region — and if no competitors, who would have incentive to pay for advertising to point out the hidden block?

Cable vs mobile

I don't see mobile broadband as an anti-competitive market, especially in urban areas in the US. We've got Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T... all competing for the same business. I don't think net neutrality regulation is needed for the mobile broadband industry, which in turn means it's not needed for the customers for whom mobile and cable broadband compete against each other. (It's worth noting Agit Pai is former Verizon and thus brings the perspective of a competitive industry.)

However, what we had going into 2015 was a free market failure in the cable broadband industry. And although I'd like to eventually see a freer market there, I think net neutrality regulation is still very much needed for cable broadband companies. Also, Comcast is beyond due for a whack from the anti-trust sledgehammer.

Again, gamers tend to fall in a very pro-neutrality position — a smartphone's WiFi hotspot won't cut it for modern action multiplayer. But it's not just them — it's small to medium businesses, too. These people want and deserve consumer protection.

In conclusion

Fuck Comcast.

Why do American people vote for people that bring changes they don't like and put them on high positions?

Whatever happens I think that if the consequence is the worst imaginable, nobody will be able to do anything to overturn it once its over since its all by the word of law.

"

Necromael wrote:

Why do American people vote for people that bring changes they don't like and put them on high positions?

Whoever you going to vote, such a thing are going to happen.

The real issue at hand here is whether the internet is a fundamental privilege or if it is a service granted by a corporation.

Given the proliferation of internet use and how it ties into so many of our everyday activities, should basic access be deemed an 'essential service' and access regulated by government, who can then ensure that a 'standard' level of internet service be provided? Or should access to the internet be controlled by the private corporations that provide it as a service?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In conclusion

Fuck Comcast.

This is the essence of my opinion as well.

Proponents for this ruling want you to believe that this will improve competition among ISPs. I don’t know that it will, and I don’t know that it won’t. What I do have are a collection of still nebulous thoughts—that the free market tends to correct itself following a cultural shift, and that Comcast is unabashedly evil.

Baby Boomers are done, Gen X is at the helm, and Xennials are close behind. New generations, new innovations, cultural shift. Just take a look at Amazon, a company that is imminently successful because it advocates for its customers, provides them with exceptional service, all the while remaining highly profitable, investing in innovations of all varieties, and still paying all of their employees a fair wage. Comcast could never accomplish this, being the entrenched, rusty old cold-war era relic that it is.

So, to bring it back around, if there a chance that the Amazons could take over and force the Comcasts to dissolve, then that’s a win. But again, I don’t know if that is the case or not (if this ruling can have that effect). I do have a hunch, however, that Comcast will be so busy trying to force cable subscriptions on everybody—a soon to be if not already dying model, imo—that there will be plenty of room for new-school innovators to slip in and establish dominance.

"

Garr0t wrote:

The real issue at hand here is whether the internet is a fundamental privilege or if it is a service granted by a corporation.

Given the proliferation of internet use and how it ties into so many of our everyday activities, should basic access be deemed an 'essential service' and access regulated by government, who can then ensure that a 'standard' level of internet service be provided? Or should access to the internet be controlled by the private corporations that provide it as a service?

This is something I have not seen much discussion over, and is the conversation I think we should all be having. Presently, internet service is viewed as a commodity, but I could see the argument being made that access to the internet should be a fundamental human right. Access to the entire world and history’s worth of information grants a powerful competitive advantage, and those without that access will surely not be able to function as highly as those with it. But other than that, I don’t have an opinion yet.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

This is something I have not seen much discussion over, and is the conversation I think we should all be having. Presently, internet service is viewed as a commodity, but I could see the argument being made that access to the internet should be a fundamental human right. Access to the entire world and history’s worth of information grants a powerful competitive advantage, and those without that access will surely not be able to function as highly as those with it. But other than that, I don’t have an opinion yet.

You do realize we pay for our internet, right? The internet is the greatest information equalizer of our time to those with access to it.

There will be winners and losers in eliminating Net Neutrality. The complaint that Net neutrality stifles investment and innovation, is more in regard to the ISP who has to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure and Internet Startups companies who doesn't have to pay for it like Google, Facebook, Twitter or Netflix who greatly benefited. AT&T and a few other publicly traded ISPs reduced their spending after net neutrality, Internet companies and twice as many companies increased their investment levels. It about who win and who doesn't.

ISP would want the ability to pass on those cost. Websites would have to pay for "unrestricted" access to Internet traffic and they have to pass on those costs on to their customers. What I expect is it will raise the cost of access, create Fast lanes and Slow lanes, and Tiered services. A lot of money is at stake. Net neutrality support an open internet concept, eliminating Net Neutrality introduce discrimination of data which could initiate the fragmentation of the internet and reshape the digital landscape. It wouldn't have an immediate effect as ISP would likely continue the status quo with public support of Net Neutrality, discreetly introducing new cost and proposition as they go. The full impact of this would be something that is felt a long time from now.

random thought... speedtest.net and similar sites.
Could ISP's block/limit the 'neutral' ones and you have to go to theirs. could they then lie (boost your speed/service) about the speed you get? "look, see, you get 16Mb/s! nothing wrong with your internet" when I actually only get 6mb/s everywhere else.

"

deathflower wrote:

There will be winners and losers in eliminating Net Neutrality. The complaint that Net neutrality stifles investment and innovation, is more in regard to the ISP who has to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure and Internet Startups companies who doesn't have to pay for it like Google, Facebook, Twitter or Netflix who greatly benefited. AT&T and a few other publicly traded ISPs reduced their spending after net neutrality, Internet companies and twice as many companies increased their investment levels. It about who win and who doesn't.

ISP would want the ability to pass on those cost. Websites would have to pay for "unrestricted" access to Internet traffic and they have to pass on those costs on to their customers. What I expect is it will raise the cost of access, create Fast lanes and Slow lanes, and Tiered services. A lot of money is at stake. Net neutrality support an open internet concept, eliminating Net Neutrality introduce discrimination of data which could initiate the fragmentation of the internet and reshape the digital landscape. It wouldn't have an immediate effect as ISP would likely continue the status quo with public support of Net Neutrality, discreetly introducing new cost and proposition as they go. The full impact of this would be something that is felt a long time from now.

Good post.

I very much doubt there will be much hard blocking of services in the future. The few instances have already spurred lawsuits in the US and would likely lead to a reinstatement of regulation if abused. I understand mobile carriers have been suing the FCC pro-neutrality to do hard blocking, but mobile is a competitive market and customers hate being blocked from using their favorite apps — such things usually result in the ISP losing the customer, not the allied edge provider gaining one.

What I think will be more of a thing is soft blocking via paywall. Although I predict more sharing of the wealth where ISPs win more and edge providers win less, that's industry vs industry; as far as business vs customer, you're going to see things like cheaper plans with monthly data limits but unlimited access to Netflix, Pandora, Blizzard's Battle.Net, etc, where the edge provider is essentially paying the ISP for your unlimited data plan in regards to that content. And obviously people are going to visit sites with unlimited access more than those limited by a money-flexible access cap... this will make that reshaping you're talking about. Unlimited access to corporate-approved sites will be cheap; the same access to up-and-coming competitors will be more expensive.

"

tidbit wrote:

random thought... speedtest.net and similar sites.
Could ISP's block/limit the 'neutral' ones and you have to go to theirs. could they then lie (boost your speed/service) about the speed you get? "look, see, you get 16Mb/s! nothing wrong with your internet" when I actually only get 6mb/s everywhere else.

Spoiler

Lying about a product/service is illegal so they shouldn't be doing it.