Net Neutrality Vs. Public Utility: Whats in a name?

[Gumboy]

The whole "Net Neutrality" thing has had a lot of different iterations, many people fighting for it, against it, many people having no idea what it is actually about signing petitions because someone screams at them that the internet is going to die (On both sides)

It is such a multi-faceted issue, with so many different "Sides", that it is incredibly difficult to know what the hell people actually want.

The current big ISP's want it their way, the government wants it about 500 different ways depending on the party/location, the people just want the damn internet to stay the same and not have ridiculous limitations you have to pay to get around, smaller websites want X, big websites want Y.

On February 26th, the FCC is voting on Net Neutrality rules yet again. How many people actually know what they are voting on, and the ripple effects?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydow...ublic-utility/

Frankly, I believe that this is not an effort for the consumers benefit in the long run; and I'm not saying the current situation or direction its headed with all the bogus laws that keep trying to be snuck past the american people is right either.

This is, or at least should not, be a political argument. Is federal oversight the big boogaboo the Republicans make it out to be? Of course not. Is it the cure-all that Democrats seem to think it will be? I don't believe so, no.

Reclassifying broadband as Title II is not exactly the answer.

It seems as though no matter what method they try to get Cispa/whatever the fuck they want to call it this time through, they intend on having it happen. Whether by going through congress (Probably never going to happen with public outcry) or by just "Reclassifying" the internet, it is clear that the government intends on getting its way, seemingly without any public support in any way.


The whole "netflix" case of "Throttling" was proven to be a case of misread data, whether intentional or not, nobody knows:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydow...rality-debate/

Relevant quote:

"There was intentional throttling going on, Rayburn reports. But it was not being done, as Netflix claimed, by Comcast or other large ISPs, intentionally or otherwise.

The congestion, rather, resulted from a calculated choice made by Cogent, Netflix’s own Internet transit provider. Cogent, it turns out, had implemented a practice of prioritizing the traffic of its retail customers over that of its wholesale customers, including Netflix, during times of heavy network usage that strained Cogent’s capacity to deliver the traffic being pulled by end-users."

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/...slow-lane.html

So; it was not the ISP's fault in this specific case; it was Netflix's own "Transit provider".


Does this prove that regulation should stay exactly the same? Should ISP's be allowed to throttle based on website usage/how much you use? No, of course not. But the over-reaching decision to vote on classifying the internet as "Title II" is not going to help out on that matter, it will just be a "cover" of sorts, and allow rules to be made regarding the internet without having to go through congress, whether republican or democrat, and not be required to be signed by a president, again, whether democrat or republican.

The internet is not something we want a single board of people to decide on over-reaching "Rules" (They are called laws when they go through congress, but just rules from the FCC ) for; we need the rules/laws that are applied by the internet to be voted on in public, so we know where people stand on them.


In the end, it comes down to this: Do you trust the political apparatus (Keep in mind, it could be Republican or Democrat, depending on the election), under public scrutiny, to make the right calls about net neutrality/CISPA type laws, or do you trust a committee of 60+ year olds with no scrutiny to do whatever they want with the internet?

When it comes down to those two..neither seem particularily trustworthy, but I'll take the one that has to do it in public, by election, than I would a committee of old men that have worked in the telephone industry for most of their lives.


Political differences shouldn't matter on this issue. What the Big ISP's want shouldn't be the sole decider. What the government wants shouldn't be the sole decider. This is something that effects everyone, around the world, whoever uses the internet, this will have a rippling effect.

[Deleted]

If I can have fast internet the way it is now, without businesses suffering from it, then why should it change so that random cable company can charge me more for the same I have now?

Its not about politics, its about money and profit, and those 2 words fit perfect with politics.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

I completely agree. The internet needs to stop being treated like some third wheel.
The ONLY thing that needs to be discussed by the government is how we receive the internet, not what can and can't be done with it.
You don't hear people complaining about Electrical Neutrality do you?
Just provide the service and move on.

The US Government's primary focus should be breaking the monopoly and getting internet out to the masses that is actually worth paying for on a global market.
Meanwhile, people get better free internet in Belgium then I pay 100 dollars a month for.
What a joke.

[Rukh]

The internet is not something we want a single board of people to decide on over-reaching "Rules" (They are called laws when they go through congress, but just rules from the FCC ) for; we need the rules/laws that are applied by the internet to be voted on in public, so we know where people stand on them.


In the end, it comes down to this: Do you trust the political apparatus (Keep in mind, it could be Republican or Democrat, depending on the election), under public scrutiny, to make the right calls about net neutrality/CISPA type laws, or do you trust a committee of 60+ year olds with no scrutiny to do whatever they want with the internet?

The government is the representatives of us. Its not some occupying alien force. It is us.

[Hraklea]

You don't hear people complaining about Electrical Neutrality do you?

Sometimes, energy companies charge you more for using eletrical energy in a specific time of the day. Doesn't the Net Neutrality law forbids you from doing that for the internet? (it is not sarcasm, I really don't know that).

[breadisfunny]

The government is the representatives of us. Its not some occupying alien force. It is us.

the government is bought and paid for by the corporations. we all know how this ruling will end.

[Annoying]

Sometimes, energy companies charge you more for using eletrical energy in a specific time of the day. Doesn't the Net Neutrality law forbids you from doing that for the internet? (it is not sarcasm, I really don't know that).

Subsection (202): common carriers can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”

[Jonexe]

Sometimes, energy companies charge you more for using eletrical energy in a specific time of the day. Doesn't the Net Neutrality law forbids you from doing that for the internet? (it is not sarcasm, I really don't know that).

I haven't seen anything that would stop companies for charging you during peak hours. What is stops companies from doing is requiring you (and the provider) to pay extra fees to access content unhindered/at all. It's essentially preventing the telecons from doing like what they have with Cable TV; requiring extra fees to get different channel packages.

This infograph here is an excellent way of summing up what the telecons could do without Net Neutrality:

[Gumboy]

the government is bought and paid for by the corporations. we all know how this ruling will end.

This ruling has nothing to do with congress though. Our legal reps have nothing to do with it; its the FCC only, a bunch of old men that have worked in the cable/telephone industry their entire lives.

[breadisfunny]

This ruling has nothing to do with congress though. Our legal reps have nothing to do with it; its the FCC only, a bunch of old men that have worked in the cable/telephone industry their entire lives.

their representatives have been treated to dinners with corporate executives. yep no bribery going on here. don't make me laugh.

[Gumboy]

their representatives have been treated to dinners with corporate executives. yep no bribery going on here. don't make me laugh.

I am not arguing with you that they are influenced by "bribery" or "Lobbying". As a matter of fact, I state that in my OP

I am saying, this is not congress, and it won't be voted on; it will be a "Rule change" by the FCC only, completely bypassing our elected officials.

[Mavick]

Let's call it what it is: government, not "political apparatus".

So let's see, do I trust the government more to decide how I get my internet or the companies that have been doing that for the past, forever. It's a no brainer: government. I at least have a shot at affecting their decisions on it, as opposed to the greedy mega-corporations like Comcast, who would just laugh and do whatever they wanted anyway. Private enterprise had their shot, and as they are wont to do, they cared about one thing and made America a fucking laughing stock on internet services and prices. This is really no different then when they broke up Ma Bell honestly. That had to happen, and so does this. Period.

[wow2011]

What the Big ISP's want shouldn't be the sole decider.

Big ISPs aren't shy about what they want if you just turn on radio and listen to the ads.

Comcast saying the merge with Time Warner will be better for customers.

Verizon saying loosening law to allow independant companies to join in the ISP market is bad for citizens.

Verizon saying government regulation is bad for customers.

So what big ISP want is pretty clear from their commercials:
1. monopoly
2. minimize competition
3. no regulation

I would definitely say we do not follow what big ISPs say.

[Hraklea]

Subsection (202): common carriers can’t “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”

That's a very smart choice of words. Depending on the government, it is pretty easy to influence/bribe the government to convince them that your discrimination is not "unjust or unreasonable". I wouldn't feel safe with a law like that.

I haven't seen anything that would stop companies for charging you during peak hours. What is stops companies from doing is requiring you (and the provider) to pay extra fees to access content unhindered/at all. It's essentially preventing the telecons from doing like what they have with Cable TV; requiring extra fees to get different channel packages.

Net Neutrality is a road that goes both ways. Preventing companies from discriminating prices for more expensive services also prevents them from discriminating prices for cheaper services too. You're free to think that it is better to enforce neutrality because companies are more likely to screw you rather than offer you discounts (and I'm not really on the mood to debate that right now), but we shouldn't speak like if Net Neutrality has no downsides.

[Gumboy]

Big ISPs aren't shy about what they want if you just turn on radio and listen to the ads.

Comcast saying the merge with Time Warner will be better for customers.

Verizon saying loosening law to allow independant companies to join in the ISP market is bad for citizens.

Verizon saying government regulation is bad for customers.

So what big ISP want is pretty clear from their commercials:
1. monopoly
2. minimize competition
3. no regulation

I would definitely say we do not follow what big ISPs say.

Yes, but until we are rid of them through more competition, we are kind of stuck with them at the moment

[Bakis]

Sweden have a interesting case up for court soon. Two legislations are clashing.
In short copyright law conflicting with ISP's legislation. A bunch of companies like SONY, EMI, Paramount etc want an ISP to block thepiratebay and two other sites.

Bredbandsbolaget (bbb.se) is refuting their claim and has a long history of refusing to budge to pressure whether it be police who want more information about customers outside what the law support, shutting down offensive sites by public pressure or in this case piracy sites.

Will be an interesting case to follow. Net neutrality should not be sacrificed due to petty crimes such as copyright infringement.

[Reeve]

You don't hear people complaining about Electrical Neutrality do you?

Exhibit A:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...6#post32244526

[Gumboy]

The US Government's primary focus should be breaking the monopoly and getting internet out to the masses that is actually worth paying for on a global market.
Meanwhile, people get better free internet in Belgium then I pay 100 dollars a month for.
What a joke.

That is not what these laws and rules are about. It is not about providing better internet. It is about providing better "Whatever" (More profits, more restriction, nothing) for whichever side ends up winning this "war" :P

[Reeve]

I don't understand why the author of that Forbes article thinks Title II is so bad. That FCC regulation of the Internet is bad. It'd be nice if internet were regulated under common carrier rules (which isn't what's happening here), but failing that, I like the idea that we have an executive authority regulating it. I generally don't hear too many complaints about the FDA regulating our foods, so I'm not sure why people don't want the FCC in our internet.

[Hraklea]

There is zero reason to think they'll charge us less when they can keep charging us more.

Why do they charge the price they do now rather than "the price they do now + US$1"? Competition.

To give you an example, there's an internet company here that gives you a cheaper price in WoW subscription if you use their service, just like ComCast did by charging people more for using Netflix. Net Neutrality would prevents both things, unless I missed something.