Net Neutrality - A Discussion

[Shog]

I learned something new about Net Neutrality (NN), and now I believe I'm against it!

I'm big into politics and government (after all I'm electing people to guide my laws!), NN was one of a few resonating points I've had with what views are typically associated with people leaning towards the left. 

I want a free internet, there should be no restrictions, limitations, etc. When I hear people say no net neutrality I imagine Orwellian internet plans, Gamer Specials, Streaming Restrictions, where the base price is stripped of basic features and "cool" websites, while we scwabble over what bandwidths different providers give to our different favorite sites.

I never knew the nuances of the argument. Should the ISPs be regulated as a utility, or can we simply enforce net neutrality without assuming "broad band" internet (25Mbps up 3Mbps down) is necessary. I sat back in my chair when the startling statistic was revealed, 24% of all developed housing areas only had 2 or more ISPs to choose from for this speed. I thought, **** I'd be happy if I had this speed! I live in a house with 4 people and we all share 15 down and 1 up and I game perfectly fine! I don't need to stream 4k video on netflix, why should we be setting the bar for "broad band" internet as a public utility this high?

And that's when the situations in my head started crumbling. We don't need to regulate ISPs as if they were distributing electricity and water to our homes, competition is good, prices are high in my opinion, but we start delving into the realm of enthusiast internet and what people's budgets actually are for entry level internet vs what I would expect people on this forum to use. The majority of American internet connections don't even classify as fast as broadband anymore. 


I really don't see why we would need to regulate the ISPs in this manner. I've supported the original NN push for awhile, however I don't think this gimmick regulation is what I agree with! Do you share another opinion? Did you have other justifications or value other points differently? I'd love to read some of your perspectives on the matter!

* The main focus around my personal decision is Title II where the government essentially calls out ISPs as a public utility, allowing the government to potentially price fix. The federal government likes to say that this is a necessary declaration in order to prevent ISPs from prioritizing traffic. Shog's response: Pass a law to prevent ISPs from prioritizing, limiting, restricting traffic. 
 

[Shog]

Zero-rating is also argued frequently. Is it unfair for Verizon to not count data streamed from certain sources towards your data limitation?

If zero-rating were to come into effect I would say that services that offer no-data streaming of 480p movies and videos to my cell phone would have to not descriminate against ANY type of traffic, movie, video, or not that would fall below the 480p bandwidth requirements. 

[Guest]

I believe ISP should not block anything. Goverments should have the right to punish those who do illegal activities (buying/selling drugs within countries it is illegal, piracy, and whatnot) if the government finds out through its pre-existing laws. Laws should not be written to invade the privacy or search through what people do by their ISP nor their computer unless obtained in person by a warrant by probable cause. 

[Sakkura]

Why are you mixing net neutrality up with internet connection speed? They are separate topics and seem to have just gotten you confused.

[Guest Kloaked]

Thank you for actually looking into the problem and thinking about it on your own rather than dancing along with the usual crowd of nerds who don't think about the repercussions - like everyone who wants free college, food, gas, etc.

 

I've pretty much tired out my NN argument on the forum and got shit on for it multiple times, but I'm basically in the boat that NN guidelines sound nice but enforcing them correctly is a totally different story that needs to be approached with caution. I personally think that Ted Cruz was onto something when he compared NN with Obamacare for the internet. It won't be the same exact thing, but forcing companies to do this stuff outright will be bad for everyone, in my perspective and understanding.

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

Thank you for actually looking into the problem and thinking about it on your own rather than dancing along with the usual crowd of nerds who don't think about the repercussions - like everyone who wants free college, food, gas, etc.

 

I've pretty much tired out my NN argument on the forum and got shit on for it multiple times, but I'm basically in the boat that NN guidelines sound nice but enforcing them correctly is a totally different story that needs to be approached with caution. I personally think that Ted Cruz was onto something when he compared NN with Obamacare for the internet. It won't be the same exact thing, but forcing companies to do this stuff outright will be bad for everyone, in my perspective and understanding.

Obamacare was forcing consumers to buy health insurance. Forcing corporations not to compete unfairly is very different from that.

 

Net neutrality is unquestionably advantageous for the consumer, and for the overall economy. It's only some incumbent media corporations that benefit from unfair competition practices that violate net neutrality.

[Shog]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Why are you mixing net neutrality up with internet connection speed? They are separate topics and seem to have just gotten you confused.

Net Neutrality is linked with connection speed because the reason typically Republicans are denying NN rulings. Since the internet is a public utility either people need options or pricing fixing may occur. For example BroadBand internet is only available from 2 or more companies in 24% of the neighborhoods discussed. Is this an example of a monopoly? No, so we don't need to regulate it like a public utility (in my opinion). 

[Shog]

Lol meant to agree, not mark as solved... 

But yeah I agree with you there. I figured enforcement could really only occur after people like us run extensive tests keeping these companies in check for our fellow Americans. 

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Shog said:

Net Neutrality is linked with connection speed because the reason typically Republicans are denying NN rulings. Since the internet is a public utility either people need options or pricing fixing may occur. For example BroadBand internet is only available from 2 or more companies in 24% of the neighborhoods discussed. Is this an example of a monopoly? No, so we don't need to regulate it like a public utility (in my opinion). 

Again, you're mixing up some completely separate topics.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Shog said:

Is it unfair for Verizon to not count data streamed from certain sources towards your data limitation?

Unfair to whom though?

 

If Verizon zero rates Go90, it doesn't affect those using Netflix negatively - they still have the same data cap.

Netflix has completion, and reason to make themselves 'better,' because they've been dropping the ball the past few years. They've used to have a large wealth of content that hit a larger audience, but they've been letting go of licenses left and right, substituting for less popular content and their own, in house content.

 

What people call and consider unfair today is fair to those that companies that invest millions into these ventures, and they aren't taking away from what they've promised consumers. How much it hurts competition is up for debate, but most companies in a position to be "hurt" are also in positions to improve their {shitty} products.

[Shog]

7 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Obamacare was forcing consumers to buy health insurance. Forcing corporations not to compete unfairly is very different from that.

 

Net neutrality is unquestionably advantageous for the consumer, and for the overall economy. It's only some incumbent media corporations that benefit from unfair competition practices that violate net neutrality.

I guess this is why we are having the discussion, no?! I disagree in that NN should not include regulating ISPs like public utilities! It's a bit like when everyone had the subsidized cell phones debate. Having a cell phone is neither a right nor a necessity in my eyes. I worked my professional career for months without one before my employer offered me money to offset any costs. Cell phones and the internet aren't public utilities in my mind, but should be regulated just like the car industry, foods, etc. There's a lot of flexability we have in the approach we use to make sure the internet is free and open and that you can access my personal website just as easily as facebook or youtube!

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Obamacare was forcing consumers to buy health insurance. Forcing corporations not to compete unfairly is very different from that.

Obamacare did more than force people to buy health insurance - I don't have all of the details off the top of my head, and I'm the wrong person to make this argument anyways.

 

What I will say is that forcing anyone to abide by certain (arguably authoritarian) regulations in the market is disaster. Sometimes it's needed (see FDA and its history), other times there's more to the problem than monopolies that the government even allowed to happen to begin with.

 

5 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Net neutrality is unquestionably advantageous for the consumer, and for the overall economy. It's only some incumbent media corporations that benefit from unfair competition practices that violate net neutrality.

I'm not arguing against this. I'm saying enforcing NN needs to be approached with caution because it could turn out to be bad for everyone, just like Obamacare was.

[LabRat]

NN is simple for me. don't tier it like TV, don't interfere with my right to communicate freely with people around the world, don't price it our of extinction and don't make it too slow to be useful given the current state of audio or visual data available at the time...... almost forgot......... no censorship. that's neanderthal like in this day and age.

[porina]

I think NN is only a major thing because a large part of the problem with internet access speed and pricing is due to the common expectation it be "unlimited". ISPs are trying to find income routes to fund this by making it less neutral. You will pay somehow if you want to be on the better side of that.

Imagine if internet use was metered. ISPs wont have any excuse to lower line speeds as a limiting mechanism. They will have an incentive for you to use it as much as you can. They will want you to watch more online content, download games, and do it faster so you can do more. It might even help cut piracy, if those GBs of questionable content start costing the downloader real money, or more importantly for P2P, if it starts costing the uploaders too. ISPs wouldn't have the excuse to claim certain services are using excessive bandwidth. You use more, you pay more, they can upgrade their service as needed.

 

[Shog]

7 minutes ago, porina said:

I think NN is only a major thing because a large part of the problem with internet access speed and pricing is due to the common expectation it be "unlimited". ISPs are trying to find income routes to fund this by making it less neutral. You will pay somehow if you want to be on the better side of that.

Imagine if internet use was metered. ISPs wont have any excuse to lower line speeds as a limiting mechanism. They will have an incentive for you to use it as much as you can. They will want you to watch more online content, download games, and do it faster so you can do more. It might even help cut piracy, if those GBs of questionable content start costing the downloader real money, or more importantly for P2P, if it starts costing the uploaders too. ISPs wouldn't have the excuse to claim certain services are using excessive bandwidth. You use more, you pay more, they can upgrade their service as needed.

 

It was my understanding people have faced data limits previously and in other countries as well. I would have no issue with there being an option for a limit. I would probably blow through that like no body's business (I think I averaged about 120gb a month in college, but then again that was college [I had time to bother monitoring my internet usage!]) I would say unlimited internet offerings is a business decision, no? I don't use texts on my phone but I have the option to go unlimited. I think we (technology/internet enthusiasts) would be the ones getting the short end of the stick, employers would get unlimited plans because employees with computer access would probably just download all their shit at work and usb drive it back home. It's a bit like saying we expect water to be a few pennies a gallon. It is, but if you go to the grocery store you have options for much more than that or a restaurant and it's free. It would be a bear for internet companies to prevent sharing as well (I guess it already is though, limiting your neighbors internet would just up the benefits of sharing internet between domiciles).

I don't think it's a favorable business model and that's why they don't use it, but if an ISP wanted to try to compete with that, feel free in my eyes! 

[Sakkura]

7 minutes ago, Shog said:

I guess this is why we are having the discussion, no?! I disagree in that NN should not include regulating ISPs like public utilities! It's a bit like when everyone had the subsidized cell phones debate. Having a cell phone is neither a right nor a necessity in my eyes. I worked my professional career for months without one before my employer offered me money to offset any costs. Cell phones and the internet aren't public utilities in my mind, but should be regulated just like the car industry, foods, etc. There's a lot of flexability we have in the approach we use to make sure the internet is free and open and that you can access my personal website just as easily as facebook or youtube!

Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with a right to having a cell phone or an internet connection. It's about banning corporations from abusing their power to control the internet. It allows competition instead of letting the big players squeeze everyone else to death. Youtube might not have existed without net neutrality, it could have been throttled into obscurity.

6 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Obamacare did more than force people to buy health insurance - I don't have all of the details off the top of my head, and I'm the wrong person to make this argument anyways.

 

What I will say is that forcing anyone to abide by certain (arguably authoritarian) regulations in the market is disaster. Sometimes it's needed (see FDA and its history), other times there's more to the problem than monopolies that the government even allowed to happen to begin with.

 

I'm not arguing against this. I'm saying enforcing NN needs to be approached with caution because it could turn out to be bad for everyone, just like Obamacare was.

So you're making a comparison without having all the facts.

 

Forcing anyone to abide by regulations is not a disaster. Removing all regulations is what would be a disaster - asbestos in your roof, hormones in your beef, throttling of your favorite new web service, whatever.

 

But yeah, the enforcement needs to be done well. Obamacare is a pretty crappy system because it's a compromise. It's certainly possible to mess up internet regulation that way too. I'd just rather call for good regulation rather than give up.

[Shog]

8 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with a right to having a cell phone or an internet connection. It's about banning corporations from abusing their power to control the internet. It allows competition instead of letting the big players squeeze everyone else to death. Youtube might not have existed without net neutrality, it could have been throttled into obscurity.

So you're making a comparison without having all the facts.

 

Forcing anyone to abide by regulations is not a disaster. Removing all regulations is what would be a disaster - asbestos in your roof, hormones in your beef, throttling of your favorite new web service, whatever.

 

But yeah, the enforcement needs to be done well. Obamacare is a pretty crappy system because it's a compromise. It's certainly possible to mess up internet regulation that way too. I'd just rather call for good regulation rather than give up.

Competition in what? How do we define competition? There are more than 7 major ISPs aren't there? How many car manufacturers are there? Should we make those a public utility? 

This is the discussion I was aiming to foster, but we need to talk about it in details. Clearly the statistics I have aren't appropriate for this discussion which were fittingly the ones used to justify the declaration of the internet as a public utility. Let's drop the scare tactics and talk about the facts! In 2015 republicans offered up a bill that continues to protect the internet from limitations and restrictions while probably still allowing zero-rate and scalling back the FCC in it's ability to regulate the internet as a public utility. So the bandwidth limitations aren't really going to go away. 

In my eyes both sides are agreeing the internet will be unrestricted. The questions are the below.
1) Do we allow zero rates? (I'm fine with voting yes with obvious limitations that can be discussed in courtrooms on a case by case, just like company mergers.)
2) Do we allow ISPs to be public utilities? (I vote no, there is competition in the market place and the internet is being provided to everyone quite fairly from what I know)

The reason I made this topic is because I had the revelation that the NN debate inside the FCC between the right and left isn't about whether or not we limit bandwidths to sites, but rather who and how this is regulated, the government declaring the internet a public utility, vs us making laws to regulate the internet. I'd rather have laws that more closely matched the Internets ingenuity and pace rather than call it "close enough" to commodities like electricity or water. 

I really am looking forward to your reply, I was afraid you stopped posting after waiting awhile!

[Shog]

I don't like editing my comments so I will add the link to the below and quote it below

" To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure Internet openness, to prohibit blocking lawful content and non-harmful devices, to prohibit throttling data, to prohibit paid prioritization, to require transparency of network management practices, to provide that broadband shall be considered to be an information service, and to prohibit the Commission or a State commission from relying on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as a grant of authority. "

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7a90bcad-41c9-4f11-b341-9e4c14dac91c/28D2060F1855F668A25A7959F0B4D494.oll15072-3-.pdf

[bob345]

In theory, you're right we should not need net neutrality or regulations to keep the internet open and free. The thing is though, many things that have a sound theory dont always work in the real world. Large isp's like Comcast and Verizon do not change based on what customers want, they change based on what their stockholders want and those stockholders are only there for the money. The second you take away regulations and let these huge companies do whatever they feel like is when you, the customer start getting screwed over even more. These companies already run like a monopoly, we dont need to feed into that any more.

[AshleyAshes]

Show of hands.  How many people got their current job without using the internet?

 

Now tell me that the internet isn't as much a utility as your telephone. 

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, Shog said:

Competition in what? How do we define competition? There are more than 7 major ISPs aren't there? How many car manufacturers are there? Should we make those a public utility? 

This is the discussion I was aiming to foster, but we need to talk about it in details. Clearly the statistics I have aren't appropriate for this discussion which were fittingly the ones used to justify the declaration of the internet as a public utility. Let's drop the scare tactics and talk about the facts! In 2015 republicans offered up a bill that continues to protect the internet from limitations and restrictions while probably still allowing zero-rate and scalling back the FCC in it's ability to regulate the internet as a public utility. So the bandwidth limitations aren't really going to go away. 

In my eyes both sides are agreeing the internet will be unrestricted. The questions are the below.
1) Do we allow zero rates? (I'm fine with voting yes with obvious limitations that can be discussed in courtrooms on a case by case, just like company mergers.)
2) Do we allow ISPs to be public utilities? (I vote no, there is competition in the market place and the internet is being provided to everyone quite fairly from what I know)

The reason I made this topic is because I had the revelation that the NN debate inside the FCC between the right and left isn't about whether or not we limit bandwidths to sites, but rather who and how this is regulated, the government declaring the internet a public utility, vs us making laws to regulate the internet. I'd rather have laws that more closely matched the Internets ingenuity and pace rather than call it "close enough" to commodities like electricity or water. 

I really am looking forward to your reply, I was afraid you stopped posting after waiting awhile!

It's about competition online, not competition between ISPs. If Netflix competes with the ISPs side business of providing cable TV or streaming, they can just throttle Netflix. If they don't like the BitTorrent protocol, they can throttle it. If they don't like Steam, they can throttle it. They hold extreme power over all online services, if net neutrality is not enforced.

 

And these are not empty hypotheticals. ISPs have been throttling Netflix, and BitTorrent traffic. Not Steam, as far as I'm aware, but that can change whenever they feel like it.

[Shog]

19 hours ago, bob345 said:

In theory, you're right we should not need net neutrality or regulations to keep the internet open and free. 

That's not what I'm saying at all actually! There should be regulation, it should contain and stop at preventing all restrictions/censors, limitations, and bandwidth limiting for the connection you pay for!

[Shog]

19 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Show of hands.  How many people got their current job without using the internet?

 

Now tell me that the internet isn't as much a utility as your telephone. 

*Raises hand* I'm an odd ball, I actually never heard back from any job online, only government ones. I got connected with my current employer through another employer that participated at my college. My degree is pretty focused! 

The deeper question is does this mean that the internet is something that everyone needs at least 2 or 3 ISPs providing 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up? I say no, there is internet at McD's, the library, schools, departments for job seekers. Now the counter arguement against me is that this is a restriction, my response is how are you using the internet? So should we make a cell phone/computer a necessity? After all if the internet is a need then something to access it is! A computer in every home and a cell phone in every hand!

 

18 hours ago, Sakkura said:

 they can just throttle Netflix. If they don't like the BitTorrent protocol, they can throttle it. If they don't like Steam, they can throttle it. They hold extreme power over all online services, if net neutrality is not enforced.

Both parties in the FCC put in restrictions preventing throttling that are going to be enforced! 

[AshleyAshes]

37 minutes ago, Shog said:

So should we make a cell phone/computer a necessity? After all if the internet is a need then something to access it is! A computer in every home and a cell phone in every hand!

I get that you are being sarcastic, but my answer is an emphatic yes.  The grocery store where I shop, the posters to apply to work there have no options to apply at the building itself, they instead list a website and a code for the specific store location.  The application is entirely online.  When you need internet access as the only means to apply for a job running a checkout or restocking shelves at a major grocery chain then yes, the internet is a basic and essential tool for survival today and internet access is as much a basic utility as telephone service is.

[Purgent]

Republicans, and the ISPs whose hands are deep in their pockets, hate net neutrality because it doesn't allow them to treat certain web traffic differently.  

 

For example, let's say you really enjoy watching YouTube videos, like most of us.  Now let's say that Spectrum (TWC) decides that web traffic from internet video services will be limited or de-prioritized in such a way that YouTube can no longer deliver solid streaming experiences to it's customers because of an artificial limitation placed on it by an ISP.  One of the pitfalls of eliminating net neutrality is that Google, or (enter your favorite web site / web service here), may now have to pay exorbitant fees directly to your ISP to ensure that you have unfettered access to their content.

 

Or, in another scenario, maybe Comcast now says,

 

"Xfinity Broadband Internet Service, offering YouTube and Netflix bundle with access to higher resolution streams, for only $24.99 more per month!"

 

If you really think corporations hate net neutrality because it doesn't allow them to spend more money on their infrastructure to the benefit of the consumer, I can't begin to help you understand this issue any further.  

 

Corporations and shareholders exist as a vehicle to strategically extract more money from the consumer, enrichening those with a vested interest.  They do not exist because they have an actual interest in making sure Bubba and Jean down in the backwoods of Alabama have decent access to "Trailer Park Boys" season 11.

 

Those people writing the regulations and proposals to abolish NN typically have ISP money trailing them.