Net neutrality gone

[Waniou]

Seems like the internet was just as free and open before the Obama administration made the net neutrality law as it was after. The only net neutrality law I would support is a single line law stating that all internet traffic must be treated the same. The current net neutrality law is so full of government control, overregulation, and unnecessary bullshit, it deserves to go down in flames. In fact 90% of it has nothing to do with net neutrality, much like most laws

Have you read the 2015 rule yet? You're right, 90% of it has nothing to do with rules directly, but a: it isn't actually a law, and b: it's providing context for the rules they did implement, similar to how a court ruling will often contain much more than the actual ruling.

I've skim read through most of it now, it's available here: https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...-open-internet

Here's the actual new rules here:

1. CLEAR, BRIGHT-LINE RULES
14. Because the record overwhelmingly supports adopting rules and demonstrates that three specific practices invariably harm the open Internet—Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization—this Order bans each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service.

15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for—access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet. This essential and well-accepted principle has long been a tenet of Commission policy, stretching back to its landmark decision in Carterfone, which protected a customer's right to connect a telephone to the monopoly telephone network. Thus, this Order adopts a straightforward ban:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary prohibition against the degradation of lawful content, applications, services, and devices, on the ground that such degradation would be tantamount to blocking. This Order creates a separate rule to guard against degradation targeted at specific uses of a customer's broadband connection:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

17. The ban on throttling is necessary both to fulfill the reasonable expectations of a customer who signs up for a broadband service that promises access to all of the lawful Internet, and to avoid gamesmanship designed to avoid the no-blocking rule by, for example, rendering an application effectively, but not technically, unusable. It prohibits the degrading of Internet traffic based on source, destination, or content. (To be clear, the protections of the no-blocking and no-throttling rules apply to particular classes of applications, content and services as well as particular applications, content, and services.) It also specifically prohibits conduct that singles out content competing with a broadband provider's business model.

18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content, applications, services, or devices. To protect against “fast lanes,” this Order adopts a rule that establishes that:

A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. (Unlike the no-blocking and no-throttling rules, there is no “reasonable network management” exception to the paid prioritization rule because paid prioritization is inherently a business practice rather than a network management practice.)

The bits in italics are the actual rules. That's four sentences. Which of those are "unnecessary" and "full of government control"?

The 2015 rule is pretty much exactly what you asked for, but in clearer language because ISPs were known for their litigious nature and would have tried to find any loophole to get it thrown out in court.

EDIT: That question goes to anyone supporting the repeal, btw. Which one of those three rules goes too far?

[rda]

Unless there in a monopoly.

Which is there is many parts of the US.

The god hand of the free market only works if there are multiple choices (and only if those companies then don't make cartel agreements).

I agree that this is a fair point, said that above. But the solution is to solve the issues that prevent competition from happening. NN is part of the problem here, not part of the solution.

[Orlong]

Comcast should not have sold me a service @ 3.5 megs a second then. My service agreement does not state 3.5 megs *except for popular website we want to monetize*. Pulling down 3.5 megs from Netflix is identical to pulling 3.5 megs from Tobylikestacosandburritos.com. Acting like a server at the Netflix headquarters is costing more to send data than a server in the building next door is absolute insanity. You have to know absolutely NOTHING about how the internet works to even buy into that crazy bullshit.

I also had to laugh out loud when you stated that Netflix doesnt pay for bandwidth. I dont even know how to respond to that. /facepalm

First of all before Netflix, they WERE providing 3.5mbps. Before Netflix when all the neighbors were just checking emails and then news or playing WoW, never got anywhere close to saturating their connection. After Netflix, when everyone around you is using it, you are now getting less than 1mbps because all the neighbors are maxxing out the capacity of the node and simultaneously trying to use their entire 3.5mbps. Why should Comcast pay to upgrade everything when they aren't the cause of the problem.

As to your second point. I never said Netflix wasn't paying for bandwidth. They obviously pay THEIR ISP for it, but they aren't paying Comcast/Time Warner/Cox to upgrade their infrastructure to support the bandwidth necessary for Netflix customers to use the Netflix service which is the sole cause of lot of the slow internet problems that the other ISPs customers experience

[rda]

I had to stop reading at the bold part. . .


I have been a web application developer professionally since 1995. . . . I started with .net classic, .net 4.0 webforms, MVC, I've even coded in languages that aren't even around anymore. I worked on applications for the backbone of the ATT dallas ftworth network, I have worked for TWC, IBM, CITI Bank, Two of the Big 4 accounting firms. My credentials are far more solid than your youtube video watching spree, or your britebart copypastas on "competition".

Stay in your lane.

Look, I apologize if I offended you, but you really stopped before getting to the point of the post. Please, read the full post. I take back the bolded words. (I also coded in languages that aren't even around anymore and whatnot, I am not a youngster posting edgy nonsense.)

[ro9ue]

Doh. Talk about the media making the issue so hopelessly one-sided, no one even knows what it really is.

Read this post of mine, for example:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post48359884

I just read that post and it doesn't explain why NN is hurting competition.

[Kujako]

And this is 2015, Netflix and YouTube probably have even bigger shares now.

That's what net neutrality is about, ISPs wanting a cut of Netflix and YouTube's profits. I expect my Netflix bill to go up, I hope they don't ruin the service.

Of course they'll ruin the service, they want their service to take it's place. Expect pop-ups injected into your Netflix stream telling you how great Comcasts XFinity service is compared to this low bit rate pixelated mess!

[Gorsameth]

I agree that this is a fair point, said that above. But the solution is to solve the issues that prevent competition from happening. NN is part of the problem here, not part of the solution.

NN stopped big providers from throttling data from other providers if it traveled across their cables which were constructed with government subsidies and tax payer money.

Before NN the big providers would crush anyone that tried to start up.
NN allowed Google Fiber to reach more regions then ever before.
In what way did NN stop competition? Please explain.

[wunksta]

I agree that this is a fair point, said that above. But the solution is to solve the issues that prevent competition from happening. NN is part of the problem here, not part of the solution.

What? How does NN stop competition?

[lokithor]

And this is 2015, Netflix and YouTube probably have even bigger shares now.

That's what net neutrality is about, ISPs wanting a cut of Netflix and YouTube's profits. I expect my Netflix bill to go up, I hope they don't ruin the service.

What they're too embarrassed to tell us is that 25% of that 25.4% is Pornhub

[rda]

The bits in italics are the actual rules. That's four sentences. Which of those are "unnecessary" and "full of government control"?

The 2015 rule is pretty much exactly what you asked for, but in clearer language because ISPs were known for their litigious nature and would have tried to find any loophole to get it thrown out in court.

EDIT: That question goes to anyone supporting the repeal, btw. Which one of those three rules goes too far?

Since you say that's the question for everyone, I will answer.

This is OK:

"A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management."

This is OK (although it will need many specific clarifications: most importantly, downgrading video quality is fine - this should be merely about not making content unreadable):

"A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management."

This is not OK:

"A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider's network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity. (Unlike the no-blocking and no-throttling rules, there is no “reasonable network management” exception to the paid prioritization rule because paid prioritization is inherently a business practice rather than a network management practice.)"

A simple example:

If a customer wants to be able to do X, at the cost of not doing Y (and paying less), he should be able to get that option from the ISP.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I certainly doubt anything is going to happen instantly. That would be far too obvious and cable companies suddenly switching over to packaged internet and throttling speeds would be far too obvious.

What we will see services slowly start to slow down, get more unreliable, more inconsistent, just like what was happening in the decade before NN was passed. While content providers were progressing, ISPs were actually regressing. Less service for more money. And then all of a sudden, net neutrality came around and that went away.

So as net neutrality dies today, it's not a sudden call for things to automatically get worse. As I said, that would be too obvious, and the people who were against net neutrality (or who had been programmed into believing it wouldn't matter) couldn't hold a candle to the arguments for Net Neutrality. But of course, many examples have already been pointed out in this thread, how cable providers were slowly eroding services and then making you pay extra for "normal" speeds and reliability that you had been used to before things got worse.

So no, today is not doomsday, tomorrow is not doomsday of the internet. But the low information voter base out there will have enough deniability of ISPs make the process take several years, just like they started trying to do in the mid 2000's right up til net neutrality. Anyone with half a brain will see what's going on. Anyone without that much of a functioning logical thought process will just regurgitate whatever excuses the ISPs come up with to defend why their services are getting worse and why you must pay more for normal service.

[Kujako]

I certainly doubt anything is going to happen instantly. That would be far too obvious and cable companies suddenly switching over to packaged internet and throttling speeds would be far too obvious.

Comcast pulled their "promises" regarding speed, reliability etc as the vote was happening.

[rda]

I just read that post and it doesn't explain why NN is hurting competition.

It limits the options you have as a carrier and that reduces the space in which one carrier can win over others (demonstrate competitive advantages).

NN basically says: compete on factor X, but not on Y. This does not prevent competition entirely, but it limits it. The limit is serious.

What? How does NN stop competition?

Not stops, limits.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post48359884

[Beazy]

I certainly doubt anything is going to happen instantly. That would be far too obvious and cable companies suddenly switching over to packaged internet and throttling speeds would be far too obvious.

What we will see services slowly start to slow down, get more unreliable, more inconsistent, just like what was happening in the decade before NN was passed. While content providers were progressing, ISPs were actually regressing. Less service for more money. And then all of a sudden, net neutrality came around and that went away.

So as net neutrality dies today, it's not a sudden call for things to automatically get worse. As I said, that would be too obvious, and the people who were against net neutrality (or who had been programmed into believing it wouldn't matter) couldn't hold a candle to the arguments for Net Neutrality. But of course, many examples have already been pointed out in this thread, how cable providers were slowly eroding services and then making you pay extra for "normal" speeds and reliability that you had been used to before things got worse.

So no, today is not doomsday, tomorrow is not doomsday of the internet. But the low information voter base out there will have enough deniability of ISPs make the process take several years, just like they started trying to do in the mid 2000's right up til net neutrality. Anyone with half a brain will see what's going on. Anyone without that much of a functioning logical thought process will just regurgitate whatever excuses the ISPs come up with to defend why their services are getting worse and why you must pay more for normal service.

I dont think its a doomsday, but I do think by 2025, my 70 dollar internet connection, will cost close to 200 to get the same experience I get today. And without NN, we can forget about there ever being another Internet Provider in the United States outside of the contract monopoly we have now. This opens the gate to total ISP control of content, which IMO, trumps the money increase factor by an order of magnitude.

[Waniou]

If a customer wants to be able to do X, at the cost of not doing Y (and paying less), he should be able to get that option from the ISP.

But that scenario makes no sense. Would you pay your power company to run your TV for less at the cost of not running your computer? No, because that shows a complete lack of understanding of how power works. You pay for how much electricity you use, regardless of what's actually using that electricity. The internet works in the same basic way, except usually you either get unlimited, or you get a data cap that's small enough that it doesn't include how much data doing Y would be worth.

If you want to not do Y, don't do Y and you're automatically not paying for it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Lines are paid for by the companies that own them. That’s why they don’t expand much into rural areas. My local cable is spending hundreds of millions to bring in gigabit service. The taxpayers have nothing to do with it.

You didn't know? The infrastructure that comcast "owns" was paid for with taxpayer dollars. And people are arguing that the public has no right to tell ISPs to use their lines "fairly", but those are also people who have no clue about this cozy arrangement the biggest ISPs had with the government infrastructure programs.

[rda]

But that scenario makes no sense. Would you pay your power company to run your TV for less at the cost of not running your computer? No, because that shows a complete lack of understanding of how power works. You pay for how much electricity you use, regardless of what's actually using that electricity. The internet works in the same basic way, except usually you either get unlimited, or you get a data cap that's small enough that it doesn't include how much data doing Y would be worth.

If you want to not do Y, don't do Y and you're automatically not paying for it.

It makes perfect sense.

Do you remember that stupid screen from supposedly Portugal with items like $5 for social sites, $5 for news sites, etc? That screen should have one more option: $30 for everything. That's what you are paying under NN. NN prevents you from choosing just $5 for social sites if you want just social sites and nothing else - and yes, this makes sense for the customer because $5 is less than $30.

[wunksta]

It limits the options you have as a carrier and that reduces the space in which one carrier can win over others (demonstrate competitive advantages).

NN basically says: compete on factor X, but not on Y. This does not prevent competition entirely, but it limits it. The limit is serious.



Not stops, limits.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post48359884

Having to provide equal access to content does not limit competition. Every ISP has to do this. If an ISP wanted to compete, they can do that by developing their infrastructure and offering lower rates. Unbundling the 'local loops' would help with allowing more competition. Breaking up the major ISPs and forcing them to compete with other providers in areas would be another way to do that. Removing existing regulation will not increase competition, it will just hurt consumers and smaller content providers.

[Kujako]

It makes perfect sense.

Do you remember that stupid screen from supposedly Portugal with items like $5 for social sites, $5 for news sites, etc? That screen should have one more option: $30 for everything. That's what you are paying under NN. NN prevents you from choosing just $5 for social sites if you want just social sites and nothing else - and yes, this makes sense for the customer because $5 is less than $30.

So... your argument is that monopolies will lower their prices, if only we'd let them?

[rda]

And without NN, we can forget about there ever being another Internet Provider in the United States outside of the contract monopoly we have now.

It is the exact reverse. There is more competition without NN, not less, NN reduces it. There might still not be an alternative to Comcast or whatnot, but NN is going against what you want here.

- - - Updated - - -

So... your argument is that monopolies will lower their prices, if only we'd let them?

No, my argument is that this particular limit is bad, it makes it harder for the market to make progress and drive prices lower and features higher.

I said a number of times that yes, there is an issue with monopolies in the US. This is another issue. Maybe the NN could have been held *temporarily* before it is solved, but that's the most that can be said about it.