"Net Neutrality" Topic

Hi all,

Just wanted to get TMP's members opinion on net neutrality. If you are not familiar with the concept, quickly skimming the wikipedia article on the subject would bring you up to speed in minutes. What is your opinion on this? Would like to hear peoples thoughts. PS I am in the USA, but net neutrality affects the whole world, with policies varying from country to country. For example in the USA I have only 2 choices for ISPs, both being giant companies with more money than god. I have read in a place like UK there are 50 providers for service. Assuming that last statement is accurate (I am not sure) you can see vast differences in consumer options. Also some countries are very restrictive, and some out right prevent access to anything that is not state approved.

Now a quick story on the matter. Today I was discussing with a coworker net neutrality. He was not familiar with it. So I gave him a rundown. I told him with the net neutrality provisions in place ISPs (internet service providers) must assume all data is equal and they must be neutral with respect to this data. He said there is no way that could happen (overturning net neutrality). I said yes it appears that the Republicans are going to run with it. That was my mistake. I am not political and do not vote. I was just stating that it will pass since Republicans will support it. Last I heard it has passed and will now be challenged in court. I think that he then thought I was attacking his political party, which I was not, and it clouded his response. I said let's drop the subject and we both cordially wished each other a good night.

But I was left thinking how could someone who valued freedom be for the removal of net neutrality. I do not see how this could occur.

Then I tried hard to think from the other side. I do not think it is all doom and gloom even if this goes through. Also I am not much of a TV watcher and can get by on about 4 movies per year. I think that video streamers will be most affected by this in the form of price increases. I am most concerned about information access since I love to read. That consumes orders of magnitude lower bandwidth so hopefully that information will be safe.

When I considered the other side I only thought about how it might not be that bad, but I am still left wondering how less freedom can ever be the smart choice for the average Joe. Just don't get it.

BTW no political offense meant to anyone. I am just considering this matter from a logical and philosophical perspective. Thanks for any thoughts.

best wishes

Don't approve of getting rid of net neutrality.
Grelber

@Grelber
+1

I think it is a bad idea, that only will benefit big bussinesses. Small bussiness will be less competitive. It is not as much as you won't be able to watch stream movies anymore, but that Walmart's website will charge faster than Average Joe's website, who will be in disadvantage.

I'm pretty conservative, but even so I think removing net neutrality would be a terrible idea--and one that will ultimately probably cost the Republican Party dearly.

"Net neutrality" means putting government in charge instead of providers.

It means if you get internet from Verzion they can block Google, slow it wwwwaaayyyyyy down, or charge you extra to use it, since they own Yahoo and want you to use that.

It means they can block your access to any site that competes with one of their own.

In my opinion the internet should be treated in many ways as a utility. It is *not* a luxury at this point. Good luck getting a job without it.

Here's a scenario for you.
In my area, Verizon and other DSL internet providers sell internet at 3mbps. The lines are incapable of even that speed.
I sell Xfinity, with speeds in our area of up to 200. That's not as fast as we can go. Other markets are much faster. On a good day, I get 247.
I had an old biddy scream at me that our faster speeds were illegal because of "net neutrality".
Clearly, "net neutrality" is one of those phrases invented to make the words mean what you want them to mean. It SOUNDS good, but doesn't tell the whole story.

A "fair and balanced" "net neutrality" would mean that Facebook could not censor conservatism, which it clearly does.

Anyone who wants to play games on line or use Netflix in my area is nuts to use Verizon. And if you use Frontier, ATT, or any other DSL provider, you are using Verizon lines. The technology and infrastructure sucks. I should note that FIOS from Verizon is not available in my area. Verizon took one look at the infrastructure and demographics here and threw up their hands. They ain't coming here. Urban Hillbillies…..
We have at least a half dozen cable internet providers in my area, all of which are superior to Verizon or Frontier. The best speeds they can muster is 50. If that. I'm glad I get Comcast Xfinity, and not just because I sell it. Even if it's only half the speed of Pittsburgh or a third of Atlanta or Boston.

Net neutrality would mean we would have to throttle ourselves to the level of DSL.

Interesting replies, all.

It seems most are in favor of continuing net neutrality and thanks to Winston we have an opinion representing the other side.

" "Net neutrality" means putting government in charge instead of providers. "

I do not consider it putting "in charge" more like saying all information is equal ie it is based on the data you are consuming, not the content. I think it is more protecting the average Joe in the same way that freedom of speech protects the average Joe. I would not call the government protecting free speech tantamount to putting them "in charge" of speech.

And, Winston, your other post: " Clearly, "net neutrality" is one of those phrases invented to make the words mean what you want them to mean. " I do not think this is clear. This phrase was coined to condense a more complicated idea into a two word phrase so that we would have a way to more conveniently discuss it in the paper by Tim Wu (2003). "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination". Journal on telecom and high tech law, 23 Apr 2014. Tim Wu is an accomplished professor of law.

Lastly, " A "fair and balanced" "net neutrality" would mean that Facebook could not censor conservatism, which it clearly does. " I am not a Facebook member, but if they did this censoring then I agree it is bad. However, I think you are misunderstanding net neutrality. It is not that websites present biased opinions, like your Facebook example, the issue is that the ISPs could restrict your access to data like Facebook or perhaps a social media venue that is more in line with your political stance (I am not sure what that would be, but I see there are more conservative leaning organisations online as well. So blocking access to Liberal content is just as bad as blocking access to Conservative content. I think both are bad and it is better to protect people's options to styles of content whether they be good/bad, right/left, up/down, etc.

Net neutrality is in effect right now and has been for some time. There has been no requirement to throttle any speed as it relates solely to the ability of ISP's to discriminate against or in favor of different tiers of providers. For example, without Net Neutrality Verizon could say that unless TMP pays a premium, they would throttle TMP while if another competing site pays for the premium access, they would be viewable at a higher speed. The FCC proposal championed by their Chairman, a former Verizon lawyer, is to do away with it.

The biggest lobbyist and contributor in favor of doing away with Net Neutrality is Comcast. Enough said.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with opinion blocking be it conservative or liberal. It has everything to do with charging both content providers and end users more money.

Following on from McKinstry's post – even more likely is that the Mega-ISP's will charge YOU for access to the various services – you'll get a 'basic package' that will be their choice of ad heavy news, search engine (ads) and mail service where they will analyse your emails and again push advertising.

Then if you want to access anything other than the 'house services' you will get to pay additional charges for a 'premium' package so you can view their promoted shopping sites and other 'services' like Yahoo or Gmail. Good luck finding a package that allows you free access to anything else for less than a kidney.

That sort of model is already in place in the Cable TV world where smaller player are gobbled up by the few mega corporations or marginalised for content. Don't hope for for 'Anti Trust' or 'Anti Monopoly' legislation to save you either – as long as the last 2-3 standing agree to split the market in some way they can lawyer their way out of anything.

at this stage of societal corruption and greed, when they say "it will be for the customer's benefit", drop everything and run from it as fast as possible.

I think the term "Net Neutrality" has become so clouded with mis-information and double speak that any conversation about net neutrality cannot use that term.

As for supporting it or not, it boils down to one's understanding of economics and view of the world. Personally, I think the government should stay out of it. You don't see innovation in highly regulated industries. Let the providers fight it out. If a big provider (AT&T, Versizon, etc) block or throttle their competitor's sites, that opens the door for smaller businesses to start up and provide access to those sites or for people to switch to someone that provides the services they want. The markets will take care of themselves (ie. businesses will get punished for bad decisions by losing customers and will get rewarded for good decisions by gaining customers).

These are my two cents, your mileage may vary, standard disclaimers apply, etc.

For better or worse … as it always does, it comes down to making money … for someone … somehow …

Another strange consideration.
I don't know how it is in other areas, but NEPA has a high concentration of tiny towns and cities. Each one has an exclusive contract, or franchise, with some cable provider or other. Ditto phone companies.
Comcast purchased Adelphia at a fire sale. So, it gained the Scranton, Dunmore, Dallas, Pittston, Swoyersville etc markets. It also purchased Verto, Prism, etc. Comcast is continually updating its lines and service. Some areas purchased from Adams cable are very rural.
So. I can sell our bargain internet at 25mbps. I can sell 200mbps, of course at a higher rate.
Bundles including internet have 100.

There are little islands of other cable providers like Wilkes Barre and Kingston etc that have Service Electric. SE is the epitome of poor service and non innovation. There is Metrocast. Ditto. Blueridge is very rural
So. I can have 200, soon to go up to 400. Seven miles down the road, Wilkes Barre people pay for 50, but don't get that.
Meanwhile, Verizon is throughout the area, except where it's Frontier. If you a premium price, you might pay for 7, and get 1.5.

I might point out that we charge approximately the same for 200 as the phone companies charge for 3 or less. This is all due to our superior technology.
Would "net neutrality" mean that in the town of Forty Fort we would not be allowed to provide internet at the same price but 60 times faster? That's the reading I get.

First let's establsih what Net Nuetrality is…. as the name is ambiguous and does not fully speak to what aspect of the net is neutral.

Net Neutrality are the regulations on Internet Service Providers to filter or throttle content.

With Net Neutrality laws (as they are now), Internet Service Providers can sell you Internet Service. They can sell you a particular speed, or amount of total data per billing period (most often monthly), and those are the limits of what they can sell. You are effectively buying a theoretic wire to the internet, and what you do with signals over that "wire" are your business (within the limit of the law).

The proposal to remove Net Neutrality, will "free" up Internet Service Providers to throttle certain content. This gives the privilege to the ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to keep preferred or "partner" services working well, but bill additional charges (either to the consumer, or the content provider) to "not" slow down said content.

So effectively right now….

Consumers have full control of content. They pay for content they want (watching/seeing adverts on sites is often the "cost"). Providers are limited and controlled to sell exactly what they sell, internet access.

Without Net Neutrality, the ISPs can (and look to Portugal for a real world example) and WILL "Tax" content. So while consumers will still have A say in their content, it will be influenced by the ISPs, and potentially "taxed" (by the ISPs) for content that is not "partnered" with thier particular provider. Whether the provider covers that "carrier" fee, or the cost is passed to the consumer, or both…. Price hikes for content that is NOT partnered with your particular carrier is guaranteed. It might not happen right out of the gates while the carriers feel the pockets of their customers to determine how much they can gauge, but it will happen.

I would rather have FULL say over my content, then allow the regulation of my content by a corporataion. So I am a HUGE advocate of Net Neutrality.

The other alternative of letting "free market" reign on the ISPs/carriers, only means killing off the smaller content providers, and eventually favouring of the content providers that have stakes in, or are partnered with the carriers….. which in very short order, will only be the larger content providers.

The end of Net Neutrality will begin a 3 to 5 year tailspin of the loss of thousands, likely tens of thousands of jobs in the smaller more independent content providers market.

Having a blanket rule that traffic needs to be treated agnostically is not "putting the government in charge of the internet."

To address Winston Smith's comments about "Facebook" censonring. Facebook has nothing to do with Net Neutrality directly, not does "Net Neutrality" have anything to do with Social Media platforms rights or lack of rights to censor.

Facebook is a content. How they do business will not change with/without net neutrality. With the exception that ISPs that are friendly/not friendly to Facebook can throttle Facebook content, or charge premiums for unresrticted Facebook access that will STILL HAVE ALL OF THIER CURRENT USER AGREEMENTS IN PLACE. The dillusion that an ISP will "not filter/throttle" Facebook until is levels the playing field on "political slant" is falacy. The only thing ISPs will be using to decide which content to filter/throttle or not, is the almighty dollar.

The ISP issue is the face of the argument, but you really need to read the laws, regulations, etc., that form the foundation of what net neutrality is. Once you find out that Google and other firms helped write the rules, that's all you need to know. It was designed to benefit many of the large tech companies and allow censorship, blocking/throttling of sites, etc., as they see fit, all under the guise of being neutral.

On a similar note, read a recent book called World Without Mind, about the rise of some of these large hi-tech companies and the power that they wield. Pretty interesting stuff.

aegiscg47…. Your statements are confusing, and it is hard to tell if you are favouring the current "Net Neutrality" laws, or their repeal.

To be clear, Comcast are the biggest supporters and money behind the "repeal" movement. ComCast are also THE BIGGEST breakers of laws against filtering content, and have been fined, and lost lawsuits regarding this many times over the last few decades of internet prominance.

Regarding the google comment…. Google is a content provider. You are free to use them or not. If they censor, that is their right. Change to the current laws will not change that.

The biggest consistency I am seeing with the whole net neutrality repeal movement, is that the repeal advocates seem the least able to separate content providers from service providers, and do not seem to know where the lines between the two should be drawn.

Here's some good reading from the opponents of Net Neutrality: link

The amount of falsehoods in that article made it difficult to complete…

First off, using the previous administrations' leaders name is a flagrant attempt to make the "Net Neutrality" issue a partisan one. When the question came up 3 years ago in 2014 under the last administration, I was just as opposed to de-regulating the ISPs.

All arguments in that article, are on the point that treating the Internet like a utility is contrary to "open and free market", whereas classifying the internet as "NOT a utility" is the better option.

Maintaining net neutrality (while I admit is not all sunshine and roses) does keep a reasonable level of checks and balances on the ISPs.

Of relevance is a recent study has shown that more than 70% os Americans are in a "local monopoly" situation with regards to ISPs…. which is funny considering that articles second argument, is that less net-neutrality will open up more competition in the ISP market? So Comcast, is sponsoring the repeal of a bill that will create MORE competition for it (Comcast is the number provider in the 70%+ areas that effectively have a monopoly).Sorry, I can't kill enough brain cells to "drink that koolade".

The current net neutrality rules are based heavily on the 1996 and 1934 open communications acts. Repeal of these laws put ALL cards in the hands of moneyed interests, with no restrictions on keeping a level playing field for the content. I don't pay my electricity company more or less to run certain appliances, why the hell should I have to pay an ISP more for one signal down the wire than another. They can already limit speeds, and charge different rates for different speeds, as well as limit the amount of signal I am able to use in a billing cycle, or charge more for unlimited usage… why should my ISP get to charge me additionally on a third metric that is outside of what I pay them for.

While the issue does have implications beyond the simple ISP vs content providers front… I do not want to put private companies in a position to be able to additionally tax me on usage they are already selling me based on my personal and private usage.

Which might be the ultimate defense of the current net neutrality laws. While ISPs do (for legal reasons) have track and store all internet usage (for criminal investigations reasons)…. they currently do not actively monitor it. In order to filter/throttle content, they have to be actively monitoring it. Removal of net neutrality means giving your ISPs the rights to actively monitor your usage, and all the removal of privacy that implies.

Down with neutrality, pick a side.

I'm going with the allies.

> Would "net neutrality" mean that in the town of Forty Fort we would not be allowed to provide internet at the same price but 60 times faster? That's the reading I get.

Net neutrality does nothing of the sort.

"Net Neutrality" is basically one set of Big Companies using PR and emotion to gain support for regulating another set of Big Companies to their advantage.

It's a scam designed to make you afraid you'll lose access to content and services when it's really all about Big ISPs and Big Content companies fighting over who pays for the Pipe.

The whole issue is a mess caused by government intervention in the market place -- more intervention won't help, and could stifle innovation by allowing (as the actual language does) the Federal government in the US to treat ISPs as regulated pubic utilities like it did back in the good 'ol days of Ma Bell.

1. The first mess: lack of competition in the ISP industry. This is partly pure cost -- it's expensive to lay and maintain "internet pipe," so that's a natural barrier to entry. What is *not* a natural barrier to entry are the Big ISPs (like Comcast) who have bought influence to prevent local competition from emerging. They do this by influencing infrastructure regulations and right-of-ways to prevent competing infrastructure, or they buy up and sit on rights-of-way, etc. So they have created defacto monopoly positions *through government regulation.*

But laying and maintaining Pipe costs a lot, and they feel they should be able to charge the Big Content guys for the pipe they use. I get that.

2. The Big Content guys use a lot of bandwidth, a lot of pipe, and they don't want to pay for it. The more they pay for the pipe they use, the less profits they have. They like the idea of getting all that Pipe at the same price your granny uses to check her email. So they created the idea of "Net Neutrality" to get the Big ISPs regulated in order to keep *their* pipe costs down. They really don't give a carp about your access to niche stuff and all that, that's just tugging at your fears.

The downside is that the regs call for regulating the ISPs as if they were public utilities, which means regulating their cost structure, what they can charge etc. This creates a disincentive for them to invest in more Pipe --why would they if they can't charge what they want or need to for their investment and resource spend? When the US did that with telephony services we ended up with a crappy, costly Bell monopoly with zero innovation.

So if you want to really shake things up, more regulation/interference like Net Neutrality to combat other regulation/interference is not the answer -- breaking the web of anti-competitive regulations and policies that prevent entrants into the ISP market is the answer.

Theyre gonna do what theyre gonna do and they could care less what you think about net neutrality or any other subject. Trying to solicit your opinion is just a smokescreen to make you feel like youve had a voice when you really havent squat.

they could care less what you think about net neutrality or any other subject. Trying to solicit your opinion is just a smokescreen to make you feel like youve had a voice when you really havent squat.

That's my point, Net Neutrality is a PR campaign by the Big Content companies to pressure the Government to force the Big ISPs to let them buy pipe capacity at a discount.

I have to be careful what I say, as I work for a large (non USA) ISP. But SBminisguy -- I think you need to do some more research on how carriage is bought and sold.

Not a good idea to let wealthy corporations determine which voices can be heard and which cannot. Bad for capitalism. Bad for a free press.

Government has some good uses. Keeping net neutrality is one of them. Unless, of course, you also love SuperPacs and believe that having more money gives one the right to control information and votes.

"Net Neutrality is a PR campaign by the Big Content companies to pressure the Government to force the Big ISPs to let them buy pipe capacity at a discount."

this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the technology of the internet works or is willful misrepresentation.

My understanding is the previous administration was going to regulate the internet just as they do the telephone companies. Previously the internet wasn't overly controlled, those that built it sold it out as they wished but it is by different companies and so there is competition between them. The new administration is turning back some of the previous ad's regulations.
No goverment is good goverment in this case.

14Bore, though it has been the GOP wanting to end net neutrality in favor of allowing private corporations to determine access.

link

link

The previous administration was the one trying hard to keep equal access to all parties

No government is not good government at all in this case.

I pay for my speed and whatever I choose to view on it should be delivered without interference up to the speed I paid for. Charging more money for certain types of data is not at all a capacity issue.

Verizon on my phone already gouges me an extra fee for certain email flow as its a "business" tool. Doesn't matter that I am well under my data rate – this data costs me more. Without net neutrality they could and probably will charge me extra for every identifiable data stream they can.

Not a good idea to let wealthy corporations determine which voices can be heard and which cannot. Bad for capitalism. Bad for a free press.

Oh? Is there some critical service that you've been cut off from? Some awesome content being denied you? Can you tell me how not having Net Neutrality has hurt so much that we needed it? I can't. On the other hand I know when you give Government the power to control an industry you kill innovation and the result is crappy, expensive services. Without deregulation in the US and the break up of Bell you'd all still be using rotary dial analog phones and pay $.50 USD/minute for long distance!

I have to be careful what I say, as I work for a large (non USA) ISP. But SBminisguy -- I think you need to do some more research on how carriage is bought and sold.

Please explain if you think I am wrong. My brief description applies to my chunk of California where Comcast has basically been able to maneuver through the local regulatory system to become a defacto monopoly. I'll let Wired explain for me:

GAME OF KICKBACKS
Deploying broadband infrastructure isn't as simple as merely laying wires underground: that's the easy part. The hard part — and the reason it often doesn't happen — is the pre-deployment barriers, which local governments and public utilities make unnecessarily expensive and difficult.

Before building out new networks, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must negotiate with local governments for access to publicly owned "rights of way" so they can place their wires above and below both public and private property. ISPs also need "pole attachment" contracts with public utilities so they can rent space on utility poles for above-ground wires, or in ducts and conduits for wires laid underground.

The problem? Local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than these things actually cost. For example, rights of way and pole attachments fees can double the cost of network construction.

So the real bottleneck isn't incumbent providers of broadband, but incumbent providers of rights-of-way. These incumbents — the real monopolists — also have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. They determine what hoops an ISP must jump through to get approval.

link

Want competition? Break up this game that only the Big ISPs can play.

this betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the technology of the internet works or is willful misrepresentation.

Then lay it on, explain! How do we now have a problem requiring "Net Neutrality" when the internet in the US had no such regulations and we saw perhaps the most rapid expansion and innovation of an industry -- ever. Creating trillions of dollars in wealth, tens if not hundreds of millions of jobs and amazing services that did not exist 20 years ago.

Verizon on my phone already gouges me an extra fee for certain email flow as its a "business" tool. Doesn't matter that I am well under my data rate – this data costs me more. Without net neutrality they could and probably will charge me extra for every identifiable data stream they can.

And you have the memory of a the time before the brief period of Net Neutrality when this was so -- and then lo and behold, your rates dropped, and oh noes, now they go back up? Not likely.

You're being played if you think Net Neutrality will lower your data costs, grant you magic access to a deluge of awesome new content and result in more for less.

The previous administration was the one trying hard to keep equal access to all parties

Again, I keep reading this -- but tell me how awful it was before the brief period of NN kicked in. Please think back to the wasteland, the veritable services desert you managed to survive before the Obama Admin came to your rescue. How Amazon managed to survive in that pre-Net Nanny apocolypse…how Net Nanny managed it…how Google… Saleforce… Hubspot… Marketo… Drudge… Hulu… YouTube…Pandora… Spotify… how all those companies managed to grow in the pre-NN era…total mystery.

SBminisguy -- a lot of what you are describing has nothing to do with net neutrality. This article explains the issues well. link

You also have to look at why net neutrality was introduced. In the early days of the internet, net neutrality existed because the technology to throttle delivery speed based on source just didnt exist. But the technology exists now.

There also was no Netflix who wanted a free ride on bandwidth demands…

As the article says, that is a separate issue and nothing to do with net neutrality.

Lol, sure, if you think so!

At the end of the day, Net Neutrality is a First Amendment issue. The same people who control the SuperPacs and try to buy elections can easily control information without the regulation of net neutrality. Ending net neutrality is not only bad for business, its another step toward fascism.

I might be being 1understood incorectly but have heard 2 Administrators in interview, one before 2013 and the new one. The previous administration put the net neutrality regulations in 2015, the new administration is voting tomorrow to turn those regulations back before the 2015 changes.
The new administrator pointed out none of companies performed these so thought restricted output before 2015 and since the restrictions investments are down by %18 for new growth.

Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell Tues Dec 12 podcast around 12 minutesm
link
U

Present FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai
Will replay at 2pm TMP time and again at 5 pm in a interview with Dennis Prager, about 20 minutes long
player.tritondigital.com/1201

14Bore, ending net neutrality gives private companies and wealthy individuals freedom to control who has access to the internet.

link

Just as they had before 2015, and yes I know the Democrat members of the FCC don't like their rules being erased.
Either way seems it will be gone tomorrow and the internet will still be moving along growing lkke never before

I'm sure that the wealthy SuperPac contributors will be very happy to hear you say that.

Just to end, its gone, the internet will be the same as the first 15 years (2000 – 2015) as it will be tomorrow, Comcast ( or any other corporation isn't going to cut off your daily downloads. And with luck prices per gig will still be dropping on line and your phone.

Nice Gloating. Now a few corporations can do to the internet what they did to cable, and now the wealthy have another way to control information and innovation. Another step closer to fascism.

In every poll, Americans indicated overwhelmingly to keep net neutrality. As long as the right people profit, our voices don't mean a thing.

There is always companies willing to try new things like broadband using wet strings
link