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

[Reeve]

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.

Because the internet service providers aren't regulated as common carriers, access to alternatives kind of sucks ass. It's not a very competitive market.

[Gumboy]

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.

That second example was proven to be wrong, at least from netflixes blog post accusing ISP's of throttling their service. It was actually netflix's service itself throttling, as they ended up admitting.

[Hraklea]

Because the internet service providers aren't regulated as common carriers, access to alternatives kind of sucks ass. It's not a very competitive market.

There is no competition to speak of. They've carved up the country into regional monopolies.

I rather promote competition instead of regulating monopolies.

- - - Updated - - -

That second example was proven to be wrong, at least from netflixes blog post accusing ISP's of throttling their service. It was actually netflix's service itself throttling, as they ended up admitting.

Thanks, I didn't know that.

[Reeve]

I rather promote competition instead of regulating monopolies.

They tried promoting competition. That's what the last decade and a half has been since the FCC decided not to regulate the ISPs like phone services. The whole point was to encourage competition and try to get people to come up with new creative ways to deliver the internet to people. That didn't really end up happening. Non-terrestrial signals were too intermittent and/or didn't carry enough data, while terrestrial cable was both expensive to install and also often subject to high degrees of local regulation, including ridiculous pole attachment fees. And the ISPs, being the incumbent big dogs in town, were able to exert a lot of pressure on local governments to increase barriers to entry.

That's what got us where we are today. So now we're talking about regulating more at the federal level in order to avoid these abuses and hopefully spur more competition.

[Eroginous]

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.

Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, there are a few facts that cannot be disputed:

1. The internet is a service that is a necessary utility for everyone to have access to.

2. Today's ISPs have milked the internet for billions of dollars they aren't using to improve internet access/speeds.

3. New infrastructure is needed, especially for the last mile, where end users are dealing with the throttling effects of old copper lines.

4. Today's ISPs are determined to continue to treat the internet like it's a money printing press instead of a necessary information network everyone should have access to. They've even go so far as to try and rule against towns and cities trying to establish their own ISPs, especially in areas where no other broadband options are available.

5. Net neutrality rules are the only chance any of us have at changing the way the internet is treated.

Now, you can argue about the specifics of each bill or about who's really on the right side of the discussion, but you can't argue against these facts. Who should really own the internet? What do we need to do to make sure we're getting the speeds we pay for, pay reasonable prices, and have access to more than one option in all areas?

[The Stormbringer]

Removing regulations and allowing businesses to do things the way they want will never in a million year work. Monopolies need to be torn apart if there's any chance for competition to survive.

Alternatively, if the government bought up all the fibre lines and infrastructure for the internet and turned it into a public medium, building more and maintaining it via taxes and renting it out to companies who want to use it instead, that would allow a bunch of new smaller companies to have a shot. Why? Because right now all the big corporations are the ones that own the lines, and they rent it out to the people they want to rent it out to. If it was a public thing, then it would work just like electric companies.

Throw in a splash of common carrier and you're good to go.

[Reeve]

I find it interesting that these are the things listed in the article as "worrisome," as I think these all sound great:

Commissioner Pai identified several other worrisome aspects of Wheeler’s effort to enact the Obama plan:

+Sponsored data and zero rated services will likely be prohibited, as public utility advocates have demanded. These are innovative and well-regarded services where content providers subsidize consumer use of the most popular applications (including Facebook and Wikipedia) on mobile plans.

+Usage-based pricing may also be banned, meaning average users will subsidize power uses who consume far more broadband services.

+Class actions lawsuits will be allowed for challenges to ISP practices, a perennial Christmas gift for Washington trial lawyers.

+Forbearance from rate regulation, unbundling, and new taxes and fees is only temporary. No future utility-style regulations has been taken off the table.

[Puremallace]

Here is how this breaks down:
1. We had a perfectly good working system
2. Companies like Verizon and AT&T wanted more money
3. They fucked with fire and have gotten burned

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. That it is. Now Google Fiber is going to come in and absolutely rape these companies after 2/26/2015. Mark your calenders.

[Mavick]

That second example was proven to be wrong, at least from netflixes blog post accusing ISP's of throttling their service. It was actually netflix's service itself throttling, as they ended up admitting.

Not entirely true. The Forbes article you linked in the OP mentions one case where one of Netflix's transit providers, Cogent, was prioritizing traffic for retail customers. But Netflix uses more than one depending on area and network. L3 is another and they posted diagrams showing unused Verizon switches like this one:

http://www.extremetech.com/computing...more-bandwidth

I mean, the facts are, ISP's do throttle. This is pretty much an undisputed fact. Netflix has had to constantly negotiate with ISP's for this, hence all their "screaming" as referenced in your article. So posting an article that prattles on and on about one case that wasn't an ISP's doing is like ignoring the forest for the trees.

[Tankendog]

This same thing happened with phone companies. It takes time, but they will get busted up. Monopolies happen in the US, but they rarely last forever.

[Attackrabbit]

Regardless of where a person stands on this issue, there are a few facts that cannot be disputed:

1. The internet is a service that is a necessary utility for everyone to have access to.

I can and do dispute that

[lordmatthias]

In my opinion the internet has become more than just a luxary service. It is pretty much mandatory in this day and age. In my opinion it should be classified like other essential infrastructure (like roads etc...). Regardless what it is classified as these corporate regional monopolies need to stop, there is literally no benefit to the consumer and it has artificially held back progress on development of faster, more reliable, and more readily available connections.

[Hraklea]

It is pretty much mandatory in this day and age.

The only thing I can't do without internet is playing WoW. I can do everything else I use internet for with my cellphone.

[Bakis]

Because the internet service providers aren't regulated as common carriers, access to alternatives kind of sucks ass. It's not a very competitive market.

Speaking US it is the understatement of the year. It is 10 times closer to cartels than free market.

[wow2011]

The only thing I can't do without internet is playing WoW. I can do everything else I use internet for with my cellphone.

You mean you access internet with your cellphone instead of PC?

[Rhine101]

Anyone with even the most basic concept of economy should side with competition.

It forces business to constantly improve their products, better service, and drive down prices for customers. Why in the hell would anyone be against that?

....Well any person that is not the CEO of a monopoly I mean.

[Hraklea]

You mean you access internet with your cellphone instead of PC?

No, I mean I can call people rather than chat through Facebook and/or MMO-Champion.

[Reeve]

Speaking US it is the understatement of the year. It is 10 times closer to cartels than free market.

An oligopoly with regional monopolies, yes.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I mean I can call people rather than chat through Facebook and/or MMO-Champion.

Chatting on Facebook and MMOC is fundamentally different from calling someone on the phone.

[Hraklea]

Chatting on Facebook and MMOC is fundamentally different from calling someone on the phone.

It's not different enough to justify the claim that "internet is mandatory". For me, it isn't.

[wow2011]

No, I mean I can call people rather than chat through Facebook and/or MMO-Champion.

You do surprisingly little with internet then if all you do is facebook/mmo-champ/wow. Personally speaking (and this is also true for eveyrone i know), we use email, check weather, getting direction, phone navigation, finding store hours, finding merchant phone numbers for support, check bank statement, pay bills, read news and many more on a fairly regular basis and all of these require internet.