War over net neutrality in the US has begun. Ajit Pai named FCC Chairman by Trump

[callipygoustp]

I'll be able to afford cost increases as they come. I hope the rest of you will be able to as well.

[javen]

I'm sure content providers will try to scare people, but are they wrong? Can anyone claim that Netflix, WoW, or any other big service won't raise prices to compensate for having to pay Comcast/whoever more money?

What about MMOC? If they don't pay the US ISPs a big fee will it suddenly become 10x longer to load the site?

Nothing is set in stone yet, but all I see is the potential for our internet experience to get both worse and more expensive.

Passing additional costs to the consumer is definitely the easiest and most common ways of dealing with additional fees, which is also why this administrations view on tariffs is also worrying. It's one thing to try and scare companies with huge fees to sell goods made outside of the country, but unless you're totally fine paying $1500 for your next phone, these types of practices can be really harmful at the consumer level.

Right now, the best hope for the ISPs is for this to fly under the radar, because it's a tough sell. They're arguing to change things, while the other side wants to keep things the way they are, so people are naturally going to want to side with keeping things as they are, since by and large the US doesn't have a problem with their internet speeds, even though they definitely should, because they're horrible. The fact that the ISPs want even MORE money when they've done an absolutely abysmal job at building any kind of decent infrastructure tells me that there's no way they would actually invest any additional capital from charging online service providers like Netflix a premium.

[May90]

Well, I personally think that "forced neutrality" is a bit of an oxymoron. ISPs are private companies, the government shouldn't tell them what services and how to provide.

What's really hurting the US Internet is that cancerous telecommunication act that essentially ensures a market oligopoly. Remove that act along with rejecting forced net neutrality, and in a few years, perhaps, people in most areas will have a good selection of ISPs to choose from, as opposed to having to subscribe to whatever operator is dominating your area.

[NED funded]

You have to be uninformed to blindly support current US net neutrality legislation.

Current net neutrality is more a battle of content providers (Google, Netflix, etc.) against the connection suppliers (Comcast, etc.). Notice it's large, "evil" corporations on both sides. Video streaming is the largest chunk of consumer data and consumers want higher quality, which increases bandwidth demands. As a connection supplier, it costs money and takes time to lay new lines, upgrade equipment, etc. For the connection suppliers, the fear is running out of bandwidth at peak usage hours - everyone is hurt and upset. A common practice in all industries is to charge more for higher usage (premium service), restrict/throttle higher usage, and charge more at peak times. If you live in an urban area, you often see higher parking rates on weekdays and lower rates on evenings and weekends; the electricity industry is moving to smart grids so they can charge more at peak usage times. But net neutrality says similar practices are illegal for internet providers.

The content providers view current net neutrality positively because any deficiencies in their service can be blamed on the connection suppliers. If the connection suppliers are forced to upgrade equipment constantly, the content providers reap the benefits and don't have to innovate with better compression/streaming algorithms or reconsider how they distribute content.

Favoring certain providers' content or striking deals isn't inherently bad either. Cable companies do this when they negotiate prices to carry certain channels and that gets turned reflected in content packages. If a company becomes too limited, then competition will arises, or anti-trust laws can be invoked.

Basically, current net neutrality sounds nice, but isn't well-implemented when you consider all aspects.

Holy shit dude. Come up with original arguments, that was literally taken from the paper I posted.

[javen]

Well, I personally think that "forced neutrality" is a bit of an oxymoron. ISPs are private companies, the government shouldn't tell them what services and how to provide.

What's really hurting the US Internet is that cancerous telecommunication act that essentially ensures a market oligopoly. Remove that act along with rejecting forced net neutrality, and in a few years, perhaps, people in most areas will have a good selection of ISPs to choose from, as opposed to having to subscribe to whatever operator is dominating your area.

Regulations make sense in this case because with the way the internet is evolving, it's becoming much more like a utility, such as power, heat, or water, than a luxury like cable. Telecom companies still want to treat it as a luxury, though, so that's where the friction comes from.

[De Lupe]

Not this shit again... Where's my shotgun?

[NED funded]

On page 9.



Furthermore, this heap of nonsense is from 2010. A cursory examination of their predictions and current reality shows they're completely out to lunch. Their gushing about competition that will prevent major ISPs from pulling shit has utterly failed to materialize. Wireless networks have clamped down further on data caps, and are squeezing any remaining unlimited plans out of existence, further cementing the fact that they will not compete against wired.

Even on those points being wrong the paper still tackles a couple of points I have not seen addressed.
Net neutrality acting as a form of price control, that is then passed onto the consumer and more competitive markerts being a better solution.

[May90]

Regulations make sense in this case because with the way the internet is evolving, it's becoming much more like a utility, such as power, heat, or water, than a luxury like cable. Telecom companies still want to treat it as a luxury, though, so that's where the friction comes from.

In this case, I would prefer the government to step up and fund a public alternative to private ISPs, with guaranteed neutrality, low costs, etc. (I believe the Tasmanian government has done something like this.) This will force the private companies to change their policies as well to stay competitive.

I am not a fan of regulations, I prefer methods that lead to better business practices naturally.

[Ripster42]

In this case, I would prefer the government to step up and fund a public alternative to private ISPs, with guaranteed neutrality, low costs, etc. (I believe the Tasmanian government has done something like this.) This will force the private companies to change their policies as well to stay competitive.

I am not a fan of regulations, I prefer methods that lead to better business practices naturally.

Yeah, about that. The big ISPs are suing to prevent that. Even though they lost that case, new management in the FCC is likely to change the outlook going forward.

[Wyrt]

In this case, I would prefer the government to step up and fund a public alternative to private ISPs, with guaranteed neutrality, low costs, etc. (I believe the Tasmanian government has done something like this.) This will force the private companies to change their policies as well to stay competitive.

I am not a fan of regulations, I prefer methods that lead to better business practices naturally.

Strangely, companies favor profit over better business practices which is why regulations are often necessary.

[The Stormbringer]

Here's a great video on it by Eben Moglen mixed in with a talk on the broader topic of intellectual freedom:

Holy shit. This is... a lot like opening my eyes. I recommend anyone interested in Net Neutrality takes the time to listen to this.

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, I would prefer the government to step up and fund a public alternative to private ISPs, with guaranteed neutrality, low costs, etc. (I believe the Tasmanian government has done something like this.) This will force the private companies to change their policies as well to stay competitive.

I am not a fan of regulations, I prefer methods that lead to better business practices naturally.

Unfortunately companies do not move to better business practices naturally; they move to better profit practices.

[javen]

In this case, I would prefer the government to step up and fund a public alternative to private ISPs, with guaranteed neutrality, low costs, etc. (I believe the Tasmanian government has done something like this.) This will force the private companies to change their policies as well to stay competitive.

I am not a fan of regulations, I prefer methods that lead to better business practices naturally.

But this is where lobbying comes into play. When Chatanooga released their municipally run fiber optics network, prompting private ISPs to compete, telecom companies instead were quick to lobby the state legislature, and got them to pass a law banning the expansion of the service. You'd likely see the same in any state with a republican run legislature, which is most of them.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that businesses and consumers often have VERY different ideas of what is considered a 'good business practice' so that particular wish seems like one from a monkey's paw. Regulations are important when the product being discussed can't really function fairly in a free market. In a free market, there needs to be the SOME ability for the consumer to dictate, or at least negotiate the terms, even if their only negotiating tactic is not to utilize the service. With things like health insurance, or home utilities, that's not really feasible. Businesses in those markets have a captive market that really can't say no, and they know it, so they take full advantage of it and dictate all of the terms, hence why there needs to be a body that represents consumers, powerful enough to enact policy that benefits them over businesses.

[May90]

Yeah, about that. The big ISPs are suing to prevent that. Even though they lost that case, new management in the FCC is likely to change the outlook going forward.

As I understand, in this particular case state restrictions were what prevented the municipally funded provider from expanding. It does not always have to be the case, and it might not be the case if, along with elimination of the net neutrality, other restrictions will be lifted, creating a more open and less regulated market.

Strangely, companies favor profit over better business practices which is why regulations are often necessary.

Unfortunately companies do not move to better business practices naturally; they move to better profit practices.

EDIT: It's also worth noting that businesses and consumers often have VERY different ideas of what is considered a 'good business practice' so that particular wish seems like one from a monkey's paw.

If you create a market situation in which better business practices correlate, or even become necessary, for the companies to stay competitive, then this distinction will cease to exist. What a "better business practice" is depends on the outlook, but in case of the ISPs, for example, one can say that a better business practice overall is the one that provides higher Internet speeds and better reliability at a lower price.

So, the government jumps in, funds a cheap public ISP with decent speeds, and the private companies are forced to provide the same to be able to compete. No one tells them, "Do it, or die". They will naturally come to the conclusion that doing it is best.

Regulations always come with a heap of serious problems, such as outgrow of bureaucracy, increase of service costs, decrease of efficiency, slowdown of innovations... You are generally going to achieve a better result by ensuring a well working free market, rather than trying to simulate it with countless regulations that, at some point, simply get out of hand.

[Ripster42]

As I understand, in this particular case state restrictions were what prevented the municipally funded provider from expanding. It does not always have to be the case, and it might not be the case if, along with elimination of the net neutrality, other restrictions will be lifted, creating a more open and less regulated market.

They were suing to shut the municipal ISP down. The FCC ruled against them. That's not likely to happen in the future with the new chair. They DID lobby to get the laws restricting their expansion put in place.

Eliminating regulation and hoping for the best is idiotic when set against the history of ISP behavior in this country.

[twiddler]

As I understand, in this particular case state restrictions were what prevented the municipally funded provider from expanding. It does not always have to be the case, and it might not be the case if, along with elimination of the net neutrality, other restrictions will be lifted, creating a more open and less regulated market.




If you create a market situation in which better business practices correlate, or even become necessary, for the companies to stay competitive, then this distinction will cease to exist. What a "better business practice" is depends on the outlook, but in case of the ISPs, for example, one can say that a better business practice overall is the one that provides higher Internet speeds and better reliability at a lower price.

So, the government jumps in, funds a cheap public ISP with decent speeds, and the private companies are forced to provide the same to be able to compete. No one tells them, "Do it, or die". They will naturally come to the conclusion that doing it is best.

Regulations always come with a heap of serious problems, such as outgrow of bureaucracy, increase of service costs, decrease of efficiency, slowdown of innovations... You are generally going to achieve a better result by ensuring a well working free market, rather than trying to simulate it with countless regulations that, at some point, simply get out of hand.

Yep. Which returns us to the telecom act and its restriction of competition which allows telecom companies to be consistently rated the worst companies in America yet continue to profit. Of course, it's more plausible to see net neutrality go away and the telecom act stay given Pai's history.

[May90]

Yep. Which returns us to the telecom act and its restriction of competition which allows telecom companies to be consistently rated the worst companies in America yet continue to profit. Of course, it's more plausible to see net neutrality go away and the telecom act stay given Pai's history.

Well, yes. It so happens that often the talk about eliminating regulations in reality results in eliminating only those regulations that the talker doesn't benefit from, while keeping all other regulations in place.

Telecom act might go away after the next election though, since, I expect, people having had enough of this administration will choose to elect something diametrically opposite.

[NED funded]

Holy shit. This is... a lot like opening my eyes. I recommend anyone interested in Net Neutrality takes the time to listen to this.

- - - Updated - - -



Unfortunately companies do not move to better business practices naturally; they move to better profit practices.

It kinda does. Let me explain, companies seek to maximize profits. This maximization of profits can be done through two different means:

1. Innovating/Improving their product.
2. Cut/Saving on the costs.

Buisness do the latter if there is no incentive to innovate/improve. Eg: (Private prisions and olygopolies)Although in some cases olygopolies tend to be favorable to R&D.

[Deleted]

It kinda does. Let me explain, companies seek to maximize profits. This maximization of profits can be done through two different means:

1. Innovating/Improving their product.
2. Cut/Saving on the costs.

Buisness do the latter if there is no incentive to innovate/improve. Eg: (Private prisions and olygopolies)Although in some cases olygopolies tend to be favorable to R&D.

They virtually never do nr. 1 in America. Why would they, when they can stick to forcing other products off the market, lobby their way into playing dirty legally, etc. It is absurd to watch from outside America, and it is absurd that the people over there aren't doing much about it.

[Independent voter]

1. Why can't a company charge what it wants for its service? Internet providers are not utilities.

2. Netflix, a huge company making billions of $, depends on net neutrality for its streaming. "Net neutrality" could be called the "Netflix Act" and that wouldn't be too far off. Last time I checked Netflix was responsible for a huge percentage of internet traffic.

[Ripster42]

1. Why can't a company charge what it wants for its service? Internet providers are not utilities.

2. Netflix, a huge company making billions of $, depends on net neutrality for its streaming. "Net neutrality" could be called the "Netflix Act" and that wouldn't be too far off. Last time I checked Netflix was responsible for a huge percentage of internet traffic.

They are currently utilities.