Net Neutrality

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

The problem I have with the whole "they haven't done this before so what means they will now" debate is that companies every day try new concepts to increase profit margins. Americans are going to eat up regardless of whether or not they like it, because the internet is as much a part of people's lives as eating lunch now.

We didn't have net neutrality regulations until 2014, yet the internet grew pretty healthily all the while:

from the same article:

But in 2002, the FCC decided that broadband was a luxury, not a necessity, and classified it as an optional "information service" rather than as a "communication service" and a public utility. As a result, except in special cases, broadband providers were not obligated to open up their lines to competitors. The providers were only obligated to play by vague net-neutrality-ish rules.

The FCC did belatedly reclassify broadband as a communication service in 2015, but only because Verizon persuaded a judge to nullify the existing weak net-neutrality rules. (That reclassification is what the FCC now plans to reverse.) But the FCC still didn't force broadband providers to open up their lines; it mandated only that they not block any internet content.

Surprisingly, with a few exceptions, net-neutrality advocates have said little about the advantages of opening up broadband to free-market competition. It's the simplest and easiest way to make broadband cheaper and faster for consumers. The ISPs are probably happy that few U.S. customers have considered this issue and instead are worried about net neutrality.

[skinsfaninok]

Ok i'm lost as fuck, what in the world does all this mean??

[Giantone]

Whatever it was, it's dead now.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Whatever it was, it's dead now.

RIP Net Neutrality 2014-2017

[CRedskinsRule]

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Net Neutrality means that companies can't differentiate between different types of internet data for purposes of delivering them.

Consider a package sent from your house to your sister.
You can use UPS, Fedex, the Post Office.
Net Neutrality says they can't take that package look at it's size/weight/content to discriminate how it ships.
For physical packages that would be ridiculous because size weight content factor into shipping costs

But in the internet all data is just bits and bytes so the argument is that they all should be treated equal, or Neutral.

or another way to say it is:

If you are for Net Neutrality you say that it is irrelevant if the data is more packed ie video, or less packed, text, and irrelevant who sent it (netflix or the mom and pop website), and no data should have more or less cost and no data should have more or less priority.

If you are against it, you say that type and sender has relevance to how the data can be treated, and the ISP's can charge more/less or prioritize some data over others.

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Which is why almost everyone is for net neutrality.

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

Or we won't, because it's already monopolized to where 3-4 companies control 95% of the infrastructure, and they won't intrude on other markets because they have handshake agreements with the other companies. And our gov't couldn't care less about monopolies, as long as they get theirs.

Meanwhile we get the shaft, much like we do with everything else. But we'll be alright, because we've grown used to living with the shaft.

How Anti-Capitalist are You?

You are 11% anti-capitalist!

You are a good little consumer, aren't you? You never question spending money. You definitely own an SUV, and have probably never even changed your own oil. And you shop at Walmart. You have a lot to learn.

[I don't own an SUV, I have changed my own oil other than that it was a fair assessment ]

The answer is not to move towards a non-competitive state, but to increase the competition. And that can and does happen in the US. More regulations - like Title 2 (net neutrality) - leads to less innovation, and ultimately degraded services or more cost.

The thing that brought innovation and price competition to the phone market was the break up of Ma Bell, and the same with the post office.

[metalskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So, would you be ok if we had a monolithic phone system where there was no available options for better service?

Or if the US Postal system had the rights to all air mail packages, hence eliminating UPS, FedEx, DHS and other options.

The ability to charge different rates is a basic premise of what makes capitalism work, the net should not be exempt, and if it's not, then we will see better products.

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

But in your example if spectrum drops netflix they risk losing a substantial base to at&t even with a data cap. There is no incentive to drop it. Like wise if they try to charge to much for it then they lose the base to at&t.

There are few true monopolies and if the isps act in a monopolistic fashion there are tools in place to break those.

In both your examples you shut the door on another option (at&t) but if at&t or some other provider sees an opportunity for profit by providing yahoo or google or netflix they will offer it. That is how competition works.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by metalskins

Let's stick to real example as to how it pertains to the internet. One can access Netflix no matter if they're on Verizon, Spectrum, Comcast, or AT&T. Many consumers don't have a choice in where their internet service comes from. So, let's say their only choice is Comcast but Comcast either charges more for full speed Netflix or outright blocks them. Well, you as a consumer, have had your choice limited without NN.

Where I live, I have a choice between AT&T and Spectrum internet. AT&T has a bandwidth cap, so I can't go with them. Spectrum does not. However, both provide equal access to Netflix. Let's say Spectrum decides to go the way of Comcast and drops any connection to Netflix, well, I no longer have a choice to enjoy Netflix.

Or another choice, let's say Spectrum limits its users to Yahoo, but I want to use Google. Well, tough luck, I either have to pay extra to use Google, or I'm stuck using Yahoo search. Another choice being taken away.

The issue is, in capitalism, the thought is the best product wins out, and the bad ones die out. That's not the case when the ISP in your area is pretty much a monopoly. They can put out a crappy product and because they hold the keys, they force you to use a crappy product instead of you having a choice for a better product.

The examples I use, Ma Bell and the Post Office, are historical examples that we can actually see what happened when monopolies were broken and regulations reduced. In both cases it was a win for consumers.

What I hear here, is the expectant continuation of monopolistic ISP's in local regions. BUT with advances in wifi and broadband availability, those should break up naturally much like the regional baby bells early on had semi monopolistic tendencies, but now are competitive players in there markets, not monopolies that leave consumers no choice.

I agree that monopolistic tendencies and handshake deals need to be broken up, but easing competitive pressures on monopolies is not the way to get that done.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Right. I looked into this after reading this thread and I'm 100% against reversing this.

[mooby]

S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, rules were introduced to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started bending the rules (for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. Verizon sued the FCC in federal court, the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments made by bots/internet shills, like the one seen here.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by mooby

S/N here's my 5 min intro to net neutrality for those interested.

As the internet developed, rules were introduced to govern the ISP landscape. As the internet grew, Verizon and other providers started bending the rules (for example throttling people on the unlimited data plan, and AT&T tried to force IPhone users to buy its' highest priced plan to use Facetime). The FCC tried to enforce the rules. Verizon sued the FCC in federal court, the argument being FCC doesn't have the power to enforce the rules. The court agreed, however saying if the FCC reclassified ISP's from Title 1 (common carrier) to Title 2 (utility) it would have the power. FCC did just that, and in 2015 regained the power to enforce already existing laws governing net neutrality. Fast forward to today, corporate boy-whore/Verizon puppet Ajit Pai rolled back all those protections, and now the ISP monopolies are free to do whatever they like.

The next battle in this fight is states suing to reverse the FCC's decision, which the NY AG already promised to do. Several other states have joined NY. The argument will be that the FCC totally ignored citizen complaints and also ignored the fact that there were millions of pro-repeal comments made by bots/internet shills, like the one seen here.

This!
Skype, Vonage, Googlepay and other popular services have been blocked in the past while carriers push their preferred services out to the customer.

ATT owns Directv, ATT could start blocking/throttling YoutubeTV, Netflix, or Hulu forcing customer to change carriers or go sign up for Directv.

It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year or two. I'd imagine ATT will want to recoup some of the money they are losing from all the cord cutters