Senate bill to reverse net neutrality repeal gains 30th sponsor, ensuring floor vote

[Orbitus]

You realize that net neutrality is just a massive regulation by the government right? I am not a fan of Comcast but Obama care for the internet is a terrible solution.

Wrong. What regulation did it mandate? Besides saying what speed can be labeled as broadband? Net Neutrality is designed to not let companies like Comcast throttle things like Netflix simply because they are a competitor to their cable service. Which is what will happen with this ruling. Companies like Comcast will do it again like they did a few years ago.

[Edge-]

You realize that net neutrality is just a massive regulation by the government right? I am not a fan of Comcast but Obama care for the internet is a terrible solution.

Explain how it's "massive regulation". What are the specific parameters? What government agency enforces it? What are their enforcement tools?

[rda]

Explain how it's "massive regulation". What are the specific parameters? What government agency enforces it? What are their enforcement tools?

Massive in effect, not in the number of words used to describe it. The parameters are: equal access to all resources. I am not sure there is an agency tasked specifically with enforcing it, I figure it is enforced by someone going to court.

The issue is: the phrase "equal access to all resources" looks "good" and "fair", but in the end it just puts unreasonable dues onto a specific area of business, stifling competition. Do bakers have to make all their cookies the same weight and shape? Do content creators have to make their video content strictly 720p? No. If they had to, that would be a burden and it would add unnecessary limits to their overall progress. It's the same here.

Now, there is a big caveat in that in the US currently there is little competition between the carriers. Repealing net neutrality makes the picture better by making competition slightly more likely to appear (because they can differentiate by, say, providing better access to some sites they would special-host than to any other sites), but that's likely not enough. So, with very limited competition, it might make sense to keep various protection measures - including net neutrality (that is harmful to competition) - until the competition is created. But only until then. Globally, net neutrality is a bad thing.

[mvaliz]

You misunderstand what net neutrality is.

Stop shouting and learn what it is.

Net neutrality is NOT a protection from monopolies. (In fact, it is helping them stay by creating additional hurdles for the newcomers, but that doesn't even matter.)

What hurdles? List them, i dare you!

There weren’t any hurdles via NN. Why would Comcast want MORE competition if what you say was even true?

[rda]

What hurdles? List them, i dare you!

There weren’t any hurdles via NN. Why would Comcast want MORE competition if what you say was even true?

The hurdle is in not being able to differentiate by providing faster / better access to selected sites, by providing access to a subset of sites that the user is interested in for a better price, etc. That picture of some mobile ISP in Portugal(?) with various packages of $5 for that, that, that or that (social stuff, games, news, whatever) is actually good for the end-user. The picture misses one more item: $30 for everything. With net neutrality, all users are forced to buy that item. Without net neutrality, they can choose.

The carriers want net neutrality to go away because they want more freedom for themselves. They *do* want to provide better service, because this makes them more competitive globally. Yes, they don't really want local competition and repealing net neutrality helps potential competition a bit, but like I said, repealing net neutrality is likely not enough for competition to appear in significant amounts (or at least not fast). So the existing carriers just feel relatively safe for the time being and can have their cake and eat it too. The important thing is that this is good for the end-user. With the caveat that I made in the first post.

[Glnger]

winning feels good

[Blade Wolf]

The hurdle is in not being able to differentiate by providing faster / better access to selected sites, by providing access to a subset of sites that the user is interested in for a better price, etc. That picture of some mobile ISP in Portugal(?) with various packages of $5 for that, that, that or that (social stuff, games, news, whatever) is actually good for the end-user. The picture misses one more item: $30 for everything. With net neutrality, all users are forced to buy that item. Without net neutrality, they can choose.

The carriers want net neutrality to go away because they want more freedom for themselves. They *do* want to provide better service, because this makes them more competitive globally. Yes, they don't really want local competition and repealing net neutrality helps potential competition a bit, but like I said, repealing net neutrality is likely not enough for competition to appear in significant amounts (or at least not fast). So the existing carriers just feel relatively safe for the time being and can have their cake and eat it too. The important thing is that this is good for the end-user. With the caveat that I made in the first post.

This is how it will work after NN is fully gone. They will charge you the same amount for shittier access across the board then make you pay X$ to get somewhat similar access to what you had when NN existed. So after NN is gone you'll pay more for shittier access.

[rda]

This is how it will work after NN is full gone. They will charge you the same amount for shittier access across the board then make you pay X$ to get somewhat similar access to what you had when NN existed. So after NN is gone you'll pay more for shittier access.

And why they didn't do it with NN? You are afraid of this because the carriers have no competition, remember? Well, NN doesn't add competition.

Your fears are just irrational. I am not saying you shouldn't fear - you should, because, well, the carriers have no competition. But NN doesn't change this. (In fact, the repeal of NN provides a bit of a bonus to the potential new competition, see my posts above.)

You should campaign for competition - look into why it does not appear (hint: regulation) and campaign against that. Not campaign for NN.

[Blade Wolf]

And why they didn't do it with NN? You are afraid of this because the carriers have no competition, remember? Well, NN doesn't add competition.

Your fears are just irrational. I am not saying you shouldn't fear - you should, because, well, the carriers have no competition. But NN doesn't change this. (In fact, the repeal of NN provides a bit of a bonus to the potential new competition, see my posts above.)

You should campaign for competition - look into why it does not appear (hint: regulation) and campaign against that. Not campaign for NN.

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agre...ng-voip-calls/

https://www.lexology.com/library/det...e-53a598c3ac10

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/iphone-att-skype/

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metrop...ity-challenge/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/tech...llet/index.htm

You don't think they tried to fuck you over before NN?

[rda]

You don't think they tried to fuck you over before NN?

You say: I fear that they will fuck me over with NN gone.
I ask: Why didn't they do it with NN? How is NN relevant?
You then link evidence of the carriers trying to fuck people with NN.

You are just proving my point that NN is irrelevant.

[Grapemask]

You say: I fear that they will fuck me over with NN gone.
I ask: Why didn't they do it with NN? How is NN relevant?
You then link evidence of the carriers trying to fuck people with NN.

You are just proving my point that NN is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure the point is A) net neutrality allowed the overturning of many of those actions, and B) proof that ISPs have no interest in your best interests. Your argument seems to be "they'll fuck you anyway, oh well, fuck it and let them do whatever." "People will murder, why have murder laws?"

[rda]

I'm pretty sure the point is A) net neutrality allowed the overturning of many of those actions, and B) proof that ISPs have no interest in your best interests. Your argument seems to be "they'll fuck you anyway, oh well, fuck it and let them do whatever." "People will murder, why have murder laws?"

No, my argument is "NN does not stop murders, competition does, so campaign against what is harming competition and not for NN".

[Antiganon]

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on in this thread.

The best example I can think of is to compare your ISP to the water company.

The water company charges you a rate based on your consumption. They don't care about whether you use the water to grow some plants, take a shower, wash your dishes, put a fountain in your yard, operate a washing machine, fill a swimming pool, w/e. They provide water to your house, with sufficient pressure to operate all of these things.

Imagine the water company put a throttle on the pipe going from the water main to your house. It does not prevent your access to water, but it reduces your water pressure. This makes certain things not work properly - your dishwasher no longer adequately cleans your dishes, and your shower no longer has enough pressure to get shampoo out of your hair. This doesn't effect your ability to fill your swimming pool, wash dishes in the sink, or take a bath, only things that require some degree of high water pressure. This ALREADY HAPPENS when there is a sudden loss in pressure - if a main bursts, a fire hydrant is hit by a car, etc.

Now imagine the water company has a "Premium Service" package where they go out to your house and remove the throttle, but you need to pay a flat fee per month, in addition to a higher rate on the volume of water you used. That would be bad right? Why should the water company get to decide what happens with YOUR water in YOUR house after they bring it to you?

Your ISP charges you a rate based on your ability to consume (bandwidth). They shouldn't care about what data you want, it costs them the same amount to transfer 50gb from Netflix as it does to transfer 5mb each from 10,000 websites. They provide internet access to your house, with sufficient bandwidth to access all the web content you want.

Imagine the cable company put a throttle on your internet service. It does not prevent your access to water, but it reduces the bandwidth available to specific types of data. This makes certain things not work properly - YouTube now buffers every video multiple times, Netflix does not work at all, and online gaming regularly drops your connection resulting. This doesn't affect your ability to check your email, browse most websites, or access Facebook, only things that require the specific types of data that are restricted. A similar effect ALREADY HAPPENS to content that needs high-bandwidth or low-latency when there is a sudden loss in speed or increase in latency - if the closest datacenter to you loses power, if somebody hits a telephone pole at one end of your street, etc.

Now imagine the ISP has a "Premium Service" package where they remove this restriction, but you need to upgrade to a faster tier, plus pay a "Netflix Fee" on a monthly basis. That would be bad right?

There are a whole host of other issues wrapped up in Net Neutrality, like zero-rating (customers get to watch content from provider X and Y without counting towards data allowances, but not provider Z), paid prioritization (content provider pays ISP to serve their content at a higher bandwidth), and complete blocking (ISP provides a similar streaming service as Content Provider X, so they block all traffic from the content provider to encourageforce customers to use their first-party offering instead).

In aggregate, Net Neutrality essentially mandates that ISPs treat internet access like a dumb pipe. They can charge for your access to the pipe, for the amount of data coming out of the pipe (pay per GB plans), for the size of the pipe (bandwidth based payment), but not based on the type or origin of data that flows through the pipe. While some provisions (zero-rating in particular) outlawed by Net Neutrality are favorable for consumers, Net Neutrality provisions are on the whole FAR better for consumers than the alternative.

None of this even begins to examine the issues that arise when for example Comcast is the only ISP in an area providing broadband, which means they can reduce services and increase prices until they are just BARELY better than dial up, and consumers have no recourse - but nothing can be done about that unless the government caps rates (not likely to happen) or new competition appears to unseat Comcast (also not likely).

[mvaliz]

The hurdle is in not being able to differentiate by providing faster / better access to selected sites, by providing access to a subset of sites that the user is interested in for a better price, etc. That picture of some mobile ISP in Portugal(?) with various packages of $5 for that, that, that or that (social stuff, games, news, whatever) is actually good for the end-user. The picture misses one more item: $30 for everything. With net neutrality, all users are forced to buy that item. Without net neutrality, they can choose.

The carriers want net neutrality to go away because they want more freedom for themselves. They *do* want to provide better service, because this makes them more competitive globally. Yes, they don't really want local competition and repealing net neutrality helps potential competition a bit, but like I said, repealing net neutrality is likely not enough for competition to appear in significant amounts (or at least not fast). So the existing carriers just feel relatively safe for the time being and can have their cake and eat it too. The important thing is that this is good for the end-user. With the caveat that I made in the first post.

I asked you to list me the hurdles - you wrote me two paragraphs of propaganda bullshit and talking points and provided NO hurdles that NN stops. The CLOSEST you came to answering it was the first sentence and the third, and all you basically wrote was "The Hurdle is there isn't enough competition".

The third sentence is bollocks because there is only ONE ITEM to sell - internet access. That's it.

You mention Portugal - you mention the ONE package of 5 bucks... oh, but did you bother to see how everything ELSE is divided out in Portugal!?



Messaging? 5 Dollars! That's right! Want Videos? 5 more dollars! want facebook and the ability to write on these forums? 5 more dollars! Like streaming music? Fuck - 5 more bucks! Email.... because that's optional in today's society, right? Five more fucking dollars! (oh, and notice how they're so gracious to give you it at a discount price of NOT 7 euros under each. /spit)

Wahey, if you include a gaming package of, maybe, 5 bucks, we're up to $30+ dollars to have what we have RIGHT NOW... is that a savings over $30? That's not including what other packages they have AFTER that (because you notice gaming isn't on that list, do you?)

How does this help foster compeition? Who the fuck in America doesn't use FB, Email, youtube, stream music or instant messaging these days? At BEST, the only thing this is good for price-wise is gramma/grandpa who are affraid to touch the damn computer.

Oh, and by the way - people in Portugal are BITCHING about how bad this is.

You see, you CAN'T write to me telling me why NN would bring competition - can you? You yourself have no clue - do you? Both you and I agree that more competition helps, but for some reason you think NN will bring it despite not having any fucking clue as to how. Pull your head out of Ayn Rand's ass for a minute and realize that Regulations HELP make a fair market!

[Antiganon]

The competition issue comes from 3 places:

1) Setting up a new ISP is insanely expensive. The infrastructure and permitting costs to run your own lines is astronomical. Buying a license from an existing ISP to use their network isn't much better, and then you are beholden to them for your own ability to service your own customers.

2) Existing ISPs have a stranglehold on the regulatory process, largely due to lobbying efforts.

3) In order for a new ISP to compete, it has to attract customers. In order to attract customers, they need to offer better service for the same price, better prices for the same service, or better pricing and services, and they need to do that immediately, when they are trying to get off the ground, and their costs will be very high.

[mvaliz]

There is a lot of misunderstanding going on in this thread.

The best example I can think of is to compare your ISP to the water company.

The water company charges you a rate based on your consumption. They don't care about whether you use the water to grow some plants, take a shower, wash your dishes, put a fountain in your yard, operate a washing machine, fill a swimming pool, w/e. They provide water to your house, with sufficient pressure to operate all of these things.

Imagine the water company put a throttle on the pipe going from the water main to your house. It does not prevent your access to water, but it reduces your water pressure. This makes certain things not work properly - your dishwasher no longer adequately cleans your dishes, and your shower no longer has enough pressure to get shampoo out of your hair. This doesn't effect your ability to fill your swimming pool, wash dishes in the sink, or take a bath, only things that require some degree of high water pressure. This ALREADY HAPPENS when there is a sudden loss in pressure - if a main bursts, a fire hydrant is hit by a car, etc.

Now imagine the water company has a "Premium Service" package where they go out to your house and remove the throttle, but you need to pay a flat fee per month, in addition to a higher rate on the volume of water you used. That would be bad right? Why should the water company get to decide what happens with YOUR water in YOUR house after they bring it to you?

Your ISP charges you a rate based on your ability to consume (bandwidth). They shouldn't care about what data you want, it costs them the same amount to transfer 50gb from Netflix as it does to transfer 5mb each from 10,000 websites. They provide internet access to your house, with sufficient bandwidth to access all the web content you want.

Imagine the cable company put a throttle on your internet service. It does not prevent your access to water, but it reduces the bandwidth available to specific types of data. This makes certain things not work properly - YouTube now buffers every video multiple times, Netflix does not work at all, and online gaming regularly drops your connection resulting. This doesn't affect your ability to check your email, browse most websites, or access Facebook, only things that require the specific types of data that are restricted. A similar effect ALREADY HAPPENS to content that needs high-bandwidth or low-latency when there is a sudden loss in speed or increase in latency - if the closest datacenter to you loses power, if somebody hits a telephone pole at one end of your street, etc.

Now imagine the ISP has a "Premium Service" package where they remove this restriction, but you need to upgrade to a faster tier, plus pay a "Netflix Fee" on a monthly basis. That would be bad right?

There are a whole host of other issues wrapped up in Net Neutrality, like zero-rating (customers get to watch content from provider X and Y without counting towards data allowances, but not provider Z), paid prioritization (content provider pays ISP to serve their content at a higher bandwidth), and complete blocking (ISP provides a similar streaming service as Content Provider X, so they block all traffic from the content provider to encourageforce customers to use their first-party offering instead).

In aggregate, Net Neutrality essentially mandates that ISPs treat internet access like a dumb pipe. They can charge for your access to the pipe, for the amount of data coming out of the pipe (pay per GB plans), for the size of the pipe (bandwidth based payment), but not based on the type or origin of data that flows through the pipe. While some provisions (zero-rating in particular) outlawed by Net Neutrality are favorable for consumers, Net Neutrality provisions are on the whole FAR better for consumers than the alternative.

None of this even begins to examine the issues that arise when for example Comcast is the only ISP in an area providing broadband, which means they can reduce services and increase prices until they are just BARELY better than dial up, and consumers have no recourse - but nothing can be done about that unless the government caps rates (not likely to happen) or new competition appears to unseat Comcast (also not likely).

So well laid out, and yet so many people will ignore it. >_<

As I've said before - in most of the devloped world, they're focusing on increasing their internet speeds. But here in America, we're focused on installing paywalls and floodgates into our system. >_<

- - - Updated - - -

The competition issue comes from 3 places:

1) Setting up a new ISP is insanely expensive. The infrastructure and permitting costs to run your own lines is astronomical. Buying a license from an existing ISP to use their network isn't much better, and then you are beholden to them for your own ability to service your own customers.

2) Existing ISPs have a stranglehold on the regulatory process, largely due to lobbying efforts.

3) In order for a new ISP to compete, it has to attract customers. In order to attract customers, they need to offer better service for the same price, better prices for the same service, or better pricing and services, and they need to do that immediately, when they are trying to get off the ground, and their costs will be very high.

Exactly, and removing Net Neutrality doesn't change ANYTHING of what you wrote above. >_<

[Cthulhu 2020]

1) Setting up a new ISP is insanely expensive. The infrastructure and permitting costs to run your own lines is astronomical. Buying a license from an existing ISP to use their network isn't much better, and then you are beholden to them for your own ability to service your own customers.

And just to expand upon all of this, aside from some trunks, the government has built most of the infrastructure and essentially handed it to the cable companies existing at the moment and said "Here you go, have fun" so people's taxpayer money already went to this infrastructure that they are being charged to use. And then they say "THEY ARE A PRIVATE COMPANY, YOU CAN'T TELL THEM HOW TO USE THEIR LINES"

And I say "Fuck that, I paid for these lines with my tax money, I'm gonna tell them how I want it used since they're profiting off government giving them free shit"

[shimerra]

You realize that net neutrality is just a massive regulation by the government right? I am not a fan of Comcast but Obama care for the internet is a terrible solution.

You're probably that special kind of stupid that got a huge erection when they reduced your ability to seek recourse against banks forcing you into arbitration. A move that 100% benefits the banks, who could already adequately defend themselves in court, and screws consumers.

You realize that not all regulation is bad right? For example we regulate quite heavily when it's okay to kill someone. Advertisers aren't allowed to outright lie to you. Your medicine has to contain actual.....medicine. If you sign a contract you actually have to do what you said you would in the contract........ Some pretty core free market principles don't work without regulation.

You're comcast's biggest fan because you're offering to pay for a largest and most expensive dildo and by golly that sure looks heavy why don't you put it up there yourself instead of making Comcast lift that big thing where as before there was a rule that comcast couldn't jam things up your butt that you begged they take away. You're literally begging for comcast to be given the tools to screw you over all because of your blind partisanship and lack of critical thinking.

You are aware net neutrality principles were largely how the internet worked before those Obama regulations? And the reason why they made it official was because companies were doing things like slowing speeds but charging you the same and not telling you etc. and it was because companies kept violating it and doing shady shit they changed it.

As other people have stated places that actually enjoy this free market paradise you claim will come hate it. They pay more for less and shittier quality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I mean, I like the idea of this bill. Net neutrality is a necessity in the modern world. Net companies are doing in other countries without net neutrality, exactly what we are saying they will do without net neutrality in the US. And ISPs in the US are already setting up ways they can begin exploiting NN not being around in exactly the ways that we've said. But the Republican narrative remains the same despite the reality staring them in the face.

The problem is that I see this bill having almost no chance of passing in its current form. While it is a good gesture, it really should be introduced again after 2018, assuming Democrats take both houses.

Also, this and many other issues that have come up as Republicans have full control blow the people saying "Democrats and Republicans are the same!" out of the water.

Dems and Republicans have never been the same. It's just that people who don't care about politics see the issues that are important to them as the same. But as soon as something different that's important to them comes along, they finally start seeing the differences.

[tyrlaan]

I mean, I like the idea of this bill. Net neutrality is a necessity in the modern world. Net companies are doing in other countries without net neutrality, exactly what we are saying they will do without net neutrality in the US. And ISPs in the US are already setting up ways they can begin exploiting NN not being around in exactly the ways that we've said. But the Republican narrative remains the same despite the reality staring them in the face.

The problem is that I see this bill having almost no chance of passing in its current form. While it is a good gesture, it really should be introduced again after 2018, assuming Democrats take both houses.

Also, this and many other issues that have come up as Republicans have full control blow the people saying "Democrats and Republicans are the same!" out of the water.

Dems and Republicans have never been the same. It's just that people who don't care about politics see the issues that are important to them as the same. But as soon as something different that's important to them comes along, they finally start seeing the differences.

Repubs best come up with some good spin to not support Net Neutrality or ignoring this bill will be another thing Dems can use against them.

But yeah, Dems and Repubs have similarities but are not the same. And yes, some of those similarities are terrible things for the health of our country. But similarities <> same.

A big problem is that most people can't seem to operate with any real understanding of nuance. Saying Dems and Repubs are the same is like saying Tom Hanks and I are the same because we both have a face.