Net Neutrality

[Ben]

So Net Neutrality has been rolled back today.

Man, the outcry is ridiculous. Can these people make a single point without invoking the death of millions and a dystopian apocalypse? So far it is racist, anti-woman, anti-health care, anti LGBTQOSJGJSK, anti-children, anti-planned parenthood, anti-just about everything. I'm waiting for the Internet without Net Neutrality to cause a gun to run outside of a home and shoot up the neighborhood.

What were we doing prior to 2015? It's really like there was no USA before Obama with these people (this topic might end up having to get moved to politics).

[grampster]

I have a friend who has lost his mind over this.  I said to him today, "Gee, things seemed to work just fine prior to 2 years ago."  His reply was, "Yah but They've learned more how to screw us now."  So I say, "You believe then that the Government can run things better, more efficiently, without any corruption?"  His reply, "Net neutrality isn't a government thing."  I told him my cable TV is worse, my internet speed no better, maybe even slower and my bill has gone from around 90 bucks a month to around 200 bucks, their yearly contract is unilateral ie, I can't get out of it, but they can change it anytime they want.  I fought with them for 3 months before they brought it down to $173.00 and paid me $400.00 for breaking their contract.  I ordered another whiskey.

Nick Searcy who's on my Facebook page said today....

"Nick Searcy
3 hrs ·

The tax cuts killed all life on Earth.

And now none of the dead will be able to use the Internet.

I've been laughing my ass off all day.

[Jocassee]

I'm mostly ambivalent towards net neutrality, leaning towards a sensible "kill it," but the millennials on Reddit have been losing their minds and this pleases me immensely.

[Ben]

Part of the problem is the Obama Admin picked a good 1984ish name for it. If anything, it should be Net Lowest Common Denominator.

The "net neutrality" they want is more like obamacare, where I pay $700/mo for the crappiest available bronze plan so that someone else can get a silver plan for free. With Net Neutrality, it would end up with me continuing to pay the $100/mo for my crappy 5mbps*, while some welfare queen gets to watch "The View" on a 50mbps fios connection for free, because "equality".

*Out here in rural and deplorable America. Net Neutrality and bandwidth is more about the inner city.

[Andiron]

I'm mostly ambivalent towards net neutrality, leaning towards a sensible "kill it," but the millennials on Reddit have been losing their minds and this pleases me immensely.

That's been my metric before I bothered to read up.  All the right people where whinging and screeching about NN,  so that tells me it can't possibly be a bad thing to kill it.

[KD5NRH]

It's not practical for 95% of the US. That's akin to asking why we don't run multiple water pipes or electrical lines to every house.

What?  You mean we don't have 30+ sets of electric lines running to every house in town to support our (personally tested, twice) ability to change electric providers literally overnight?

I'm not seeing why internet couldn't be handled the same way; with a delivery provider tasked only with maintaining the delivery hardware and retail providers who contract with the delivery provider, the tier 2 and the customer to deliver X amount of bandwidth.  Pricing structures could hardly be more of a mess than they are with some providers right now.

[Hawkmoon]

*Out here in rural and deplorable America. Net Neutrality and bandwidth is more about the inner city.

I'm not even in rural and deplorable America. I'm in a suburb in a deeply blue state. I have a DSL line that's supposed to give me 6 Mbps -- on a good day, I might get 2.6. It sucks.

Government always manages to screw things up. I remember when the United States had the best telephone system in the world. Then the feds "deregulated" it so companies like Sprint could compete against AT&T, and phone service went into the toilet. Prices went up, service got worse ... and hasn't recovered.

[DittoHead]

ISPs have us by the balls and they know it. The Obama regs certainly didn't stop them from being terrible, getting rid of those regs won't stop them from being terrible. I've read about ISPs taking plenty of public/gov money to "upgrade infrastructure" but not doing anything of the sort and just pocketing the cash. My friend who works in telecom has endless stories of mismanagement, incompetence & waste but there's just not enough competition out there for it to be a big concern for them.

I don't know specifics of a lot of the net neutrality regs, but I have no problem with rules requiring content agnostic delivery of bandwidth. Throttling competition is just going to make things worse. I think part of the problem is that we're being "served" by these big conglomerates that now include media companies. If my ISP wasn't also trying to sell me TV then they wouldn't care about how much of my allotted bandwidth I use on Netflix.

[Ben]

I don't know specifics of a lot of the net neutrality regs, but I have no problem with rules requiring content agnostic delivery of bandwidth. Throttling competition is just going to make things worse. I think part of the problem is that we're being "served" by these big conglomerates that now include media companies. If my ISP wasn't also trying to sell me TV then they wouldn't care about how much of my allotted bandwidth I use on Netflix.

Yes, net neutrality controls how ISPs deliver bandwidth. On the other hand, it gives the Googles, etc.  free rein to to stomp on all the small businesses and start-ups trying to get into their space.

However, Google is privy to the fact that smaller companies, competitors, and start-ups bereft of the resources and capital available to build a global network infrastructure and peer with providers, must instead become customers of higher tier service providers to reach end users.

And what better way to stifle competition in the market, than have these smaller companies subject to a bevy of regulations you’re free of.

It seems the decision is, do you want the ISPs ruling access to the Internet, or Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc. ruling the Internet itself? Personally, I would rather pay a little more for less bandwidth to reach a free internet, vs having cheap broadband internet access to an Internet run by Mom's Friendly Robot Company (and likely, over time, the government). Ideally, I'd like cheap, high bandwidth access to a free* Internet, but I'm a dreamer.

Edit: For clarity, "free" as I'm using it here, is as much about freedom of thought as it is regarding Netflix, instead of my ISP, charging me more super HD vs HD.

[agricola]

I'm not seeing why internet couldn't be handled the same way; with a delivery provider tasked only with maintaining the delivery hardware and retail providers who contract with the delivery provider, the tier 2 and the customer to deliver X amount of bandwidth.  Pricing structures could hardly be more of a mess than they are with some providers right now.

This is how most of the UK internet works - BT own most of the hardware and arrange for its upgrading, and the ISPs only have equipment in some of the bigger BT exchanges that go on to supply the service to their customers.  In some ways it is good - it certainly helps to keep cost down  - but when it fails its not unusual for big areas to go down; the last time my old ISP (Sky) had problems it affected all of South London for nearly two days, and the actual amount of choice isn't that great (there are a lot of ISPs but they all offer similar products at similar prices).  Fortunately for me however, our building has been upgraded with a superfast network so we get 1gb for £47 a month (just over $62). 

[Firethorn]

The "net neutrality" they want is more like obamacare, where I pay $700/mo for the crappiest available bronze plan so that someone else can get a silver plan for free. With Net Neutrality, it would end up with me continuing to pay the $100/mo for my crappy 5mbps*, while some welfare queen gets to watch "The View" on a 50mbps fios connection for free, because "equality".

Uh, that's not actually what NN stands for.

NN means that you buy your plan, you get your bandwidth(with so many exceptions it's not funny).  Basically, it means that they can't go behind YOUR back to charge the sites you visit money in order to provide you service you at full speed.  IE going "Netflix, you send an awful lot of traffic our way, shame if something would happen to it..."

Like a toll road where, because you didn't take THEIR taxi, you are stuck at 45mph, while THEIR taxi service, which sucks in every other way including price, can go 90 mph.  Because.

I'm not losing my head over it, no, but it's a bad sign. 

Edit: For clarity, "free" as I'm using it here, is as much about freedom of thought as it is regarding Netflix, instead of my ISP, charging me more super HD vs HD.

Well, after you've bought enough basic bandwidth for FHD from your ISP.  But you shouldn't need to buy a netflix specific package, nor Netflix pay your ISP unless they're actually leasing a data line directly from them.

Note:  Netflix will actually ship ISPs servers that will act as load balancers at the local level - IE avoid the expensive exterior pipe for duplicated viewings, for free, if they ask.  All the ISP ends up paying for is the electricity/data center space.

[Ben]

Note:  Netflix will actually ship ISPs servers that will act as load balancers at the local level - IE avoid the expensive exterior pipe for duplicated viewings, for free, if they ask.  All the ISP ends up paying for is the electricity/data center space.

And when Netflix starts choosing which ISPs it will provide this service for and which it won't? This is the point, as stated in the URL in the OP. You're either putting your fate in the hands of the ISPs without net neutrality, or putting it in the hands of the Googles, etc. with net neutrality. Unless you actually think Google is pushing net neutrality for purely altruistic reasons.

I'd prefer to take my chances on the open market, less government, ISPs.

You can argue all you want that I'm misinterpreting net neutrality. Just like Obamacare proponents argued I was misinterpreting that. Yet Obamacare turned into a monstrosity that's goring my Ox in a big way, as I predicted it would, and  I wouldn't expect "net neutrality" to be any different. Thanks Obama.

[agricola]

And when Netflix starts choosing which ISPs it will provide this service for and which it won't? This is the point, as stated in the URL in the OP. You're either putting your fate in the hands of the ISPs without net neutrality, or putting it in the hands of the Googles, etc. with net neutrality. Unless you actually think Google is pushing net neutrality for purely altruistic reasons.

I'd prefer to take my chances on the open market, less government, ISPs.

You can argue all you want that I'm misinterpreting net neutrality. Just like Obamacare proponents argued I was misinterpreting that. Yet Obamacare turned into a monstrosity that's goring my Ox in a big way, as I predicted it would, and  I wouldn't expect "net neutrality" to be any different. Thanks Obama.

Obamacare was, to use a phrase, lipstick on a pig though - with your healthcare model it was always going to be prohibitively expensive when increasing the role of the state whilst also not doing anything to bring about the advantages that state run medical care can offer. 

This on the other hand is a fairly clear issue of market access, both for consumers and businesses.  The current model offers better access to everyone involved than allowing ISPs to determine whether or not you as a consumer should be able to watch Netflix, based on whether or not Netflix have paid them money; you can also make the argument that it is a lot more difficult for the state to interfere now than it would be if the ISPs were able to determine what you can and cant watch.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I've been reading this and other stuff on the whole NN thing and as far as I can tell, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Either way, someone with interest that don't benefit the consumer is going to be in charge.

I would, however, have liked to see an actual example (or better yet, multiple examples) of the problems *before* Net Neutrality was proposed in the first place. Too my mind, the bigger issue with this whole thing was that the government interfered long before there was any reason to interfere.

[Scout26]

I went on the Internet today and saw that everyone (except thse that will be killed by tax reform) is dead, so I turned around and went home....

[HeroHog]

Day one, apocalypse of no net neutrality .
I don't trust them, they tell me it's fine.
This morning, I went on drudge, to see the news.
Then, I decided to try Facebook, I figured it was ok because I had 4 hours to get to work and it's a half hour commute.
I suspect my late arrival was due to the lack of neutrality, but I needed more proof.
I spent an hour on the toilet, checking my favorite youtube videos and gossiping on messenger, my supervisor said I need to get my ass in gear.
This revealed his pro Trump anger issues, I pondered reporting him for sexual harassment.
Using the last ounce of courage, I accused him of being for free markets and against net neutrality.
He gave me a blank stare and mumbled something about needing a raise.
After work, I noticed that the yellow lights seemed shorter than yesterday, when we had a neutral net.
That's all the evidence I need, tomorrow I start using my rations.
I have a week of MRE's, then I take to the hills to avoid the MAGA concentration camps

[just Warren]

On the question of gov provided services here's a pdf that goes into it a bit. There's a long history of privately-provided services that are now thought of as gov only services. There is also a long history of government screwing things up. Incentives matter and if there's one thing politicians and bureaucrat are good at it's distorting incentives.

https://history.ua.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/beitofromprivies.pdf

So could we go back to the private provision of services? Sure but the incentive matrix has to be altered.

Anyway, back to net neutrality.

[charby]

I look at this way.

I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.

[Ben]

I look at this way.

I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.

They're not throttling you. They're throttling Netflix (for example), the biggest bandwidth hog on the planet and a strain on ISP resources everywhere. The ISPs should be charging Netflix more. Netflix should be charging users more for higher bandwidth access (as they do). Netflix wants to charge YOU for HD and Super HD but still pay the same on the ISP side.

If Netflix, Google, etc. don't like it, they are some of the richest corporations on the planet. They could become their own "Verizon" if they want to.

When I go to Luigi's and order an extra large pizza, I don't expect him to charge me for a medium.

If a Toyota Corolla and a Hummer H1 take the same 1000 mile trip on the same road, it's expected that fuel costs for the Hummer should be higher than for the Corolla.

[cordex]

I look at this way.

I pay a Tier 3 provider a x number of dollars per month for certain amount of download bandwidth. I should not be throttled for my choices of what I chose to download.

I agree. But I don’t see title 2 NN as the best path for that.

[charby]

They're not throttling you. They're throttling Netflix (for example), the biggest bandwidth hog on the planet and a strain on ISP resources everywhere. The ISPs should be charging Netflix more. Netflix should be charging users more for higher bandwidth access (as they do). Netflix wants to charge YOU for HD and Super HD but still pay the same on the ISP side.

If Netflix, Google, etc. don't like it, they are some of the richest corporations on the planet. They could become their own "Verizon" if they want to.

When I go to Luigi's and order an extra large pizza, I don't expect him to charge me for a medium.

If a Toyota Corolla and a Hummer H1 take the same 1000 mile trip on the same road, it's expected that fuel costs for the Hummer should be higher than for the Corolla.

If I want to use Netflix and I pay for 10mbs bandwidth, I should be able to use all of the 10mbs to view my Netflix.

[Ben]

If I want to use Netflix and I pay for 10mbs bandwidth, I should be able to use all of the 10mbs to view my Netflix.

No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)

[charby]

No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)

I'm glad my Tier 3 provider isn't going to throttle anyone, but I do feel for those in the smaller towns where there is one broadband provider.

[mtnbkr]

No one is stopping you. View it SD. Or write a letter to Netflix and tell them to pay their fair share. :)

Netflix pays for the bandwidth they consume from their provider.
Charby pays for the bandwidth he consumes from his provider.

The problem is Charby's provider is oversubscribed and sees a lot of traffic coming from a single, deep-pockets source, and are seeking to offset their poor capacity planning by finding a scheme to charge Netflix or penalize Charby by impacting his experience.

This is akin to airlines overselling their seats and then dragging passengers off after a thorough beating.

Chris

[Ben]

I'd be really interested to see the social justice blowback if an ISP said, "Sorry, we're at capacity and not accepting new subscribers".