Where has lack of net neutrality taken us? (right forum this time)

[ARikozuM]

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Treating ISPs like utilities stifles competition.

 

How many choices of electric and gas companies do you have?

My answer is at the end.

2 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

How many choices do you have for telephone companies aside from like AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint?

I have many more to choose from and have chosen Tracfone since they offer 4G at $10/GB (costs me 30/month) and 100 per year. I don’t need much more than that and these vastly bigger telecoms should be able to compete, but they choose not to. This is a clear indicator that they’d rather level off at a minimum rather than go down in profit. “Profit” was an intentional choice as the cost of maintenance for the service is vastly lower per X users than what we’re paying.

 

I have a choice of three power companies (the third requires me to pay a $50 installation fee, but that’s moot). I chose the company that offers the lowest peak rate as well as best hourly rate since I have servers running 24/7. There’s wnough competition that if one does raise its rates, I can jump ship. With only two ISP’s, I can’t. They don’t offer a reintroduction bonus and they may even charge for boxes and equipment when they used to be free. 

[Alphy13]

My concern with NN is that in attempting to open up the internet, we will actually restrict it. Right now, it is partially outside the domain of the gov. NN will be trading corporate regulation and throttling for government regulation and throttling. If one ISP starts restricting you in ways that you dont like, you can choose another. The NN bill as it was, would need to be enforced and would have allowed the gov to do so. How do you enforce it? The gov could easily require ISPs to put up hardware that tracks all traffic and makes sure everything is "neutral" but where does that stop? As is, the main factors restricting new ISPs to introduce new technologies and more competitive services are all of the restrictions and regulations. Making more regulation is going to put more power in the hands of the huge corporations.

[Fasauceome]

8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

My answer is at the end.

I have many more to choose from and have chosen Tracfone since they offer 4G at $10/GB (costs me 30/month) and 100 per year. I don’t need much more than that and these vastly bigger telecoms should be able to compete, but they choose not to. This is a clear indicator that they’d rather level off at a minimum rather than go down in profit. “Profit” was an intentional choice as the cost of maintenance for the service is vastly lower per X users than what we’re paying.

 

I have a choice of three power companies (the third requires me to pay a $50 installation fee, but that’s moot). I chose the company that offers the lowest peak rate as well as best hourly rate since I have servers running 24/7. There’s wnough competition that if one does raise its rates, I can jump ship. With only two ISP’s, I can’t. They don’t offer a reintroduction bonus and they may even charge for boxes and equipment when they used to be free. 

 

1 minute ago, Alphy13 said:

My concern with NN is that in attempting to open up the internet, we will actually restrict it. Right now, it is partially outside the domain of the gov. NN will be trading corporate regulation and throttling for government regulation and throttling. If one ISP starts restricting you in ways that you dont like, you can choose another. The NN bill as it was, would need to be enforced and would have allowed the gov to do so. How do you enforce it? The gov could easily require ISPs to put up hardware that tracks all traffic and makes sure everything is "neutral" but where does that stop? As is, the main factors restricting new ISPs to introduce new technologies and more competitive services are all of the restrictions and regulations. Making more regulation is going to put more power in the hands of the huge corporations.

These don't concern my original question whatsoever. I need material, not viewpoints

[AngryBeaver]

36 minutes ago, Alphy13 said:

My concern with NN is that in attempting to open up the internet, we will actually restrict it. Right now, it is partially outside the domain of the gov. NN will be trading corporate regulation and throttling for government regulation and throttling. If one ISP starts restricting you in ways that you dont like, you can choose another. The NN bill as it was, would need to be enforced and would have allowed the gov to do so. How do you enforce it? The gov could easily require ISPs to put up hardware that tracks all traffic and makes sure everything is "neutral" but where does that stop? As is, the main factors restricting new ISPs to introduce new technologies and more competitive services are all of the restrictions and regulations. Making more regulation is going to put more power in the hands of the huge corporations.

The bill didn't require active monitoring. It relied on users reporting a breach of the NN rules and providing any information or proof they could. This was then investigated and handled appropriately.

 

This bill did not restrict an ISP from introducing new technologies and more competitive services. It just made sure that the internet was no being shaped negatively by them. Also the regulation does not put power in the hands of the corporations. It gives your consumers protection FROM them. You have to remember that in a lot of areas you only have one real ISP choice in most cases. So we have huge monopolies in place and that means consumers only have one provider to supply their internet connection. So in that scenario NOT having any regulation puts the consumer at the mercy of these companies.

 

Have you done any actual research in to Net Neutrality or is your information solely off of the rhetoric provided by the new FCC? If these protections benefited the big ISP's then they wouldn't have fought so hard to have them abolished. They pushed to block them and then failing that they purchased enough politicians to make it happen.

[lewdicrous]

Hey OP, just wanted to add some points.

Topics like these are heavily influenced by politics (lobbying, among other things), it's inevitable unfortunately.

Opinions on the matter will differ even when presented with the same set of data, that's the nature of these topics. Viewpoints outgrow the actual events, even when said viewpoints are influenced by ongoing events.

The effects of NN may be painted as negative or positive depending on the news site, like I said, it falls down to opinions most of the time.

One year is not enough time for things like this to take effect, those companies aren't dumb, they won't just change their services overnight.

 

Here are some links to an event that has been uncovered recently (Video streaming apps being throttled by ISPs)

Spoiler

https://gizmodo.com/it-sure-looks-like-wireless-carriers-got-busted-throttl-1828823399

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17820508/netflix-youtube-throttled-att-verizon-t-mobile-net-neutrality-violations

https://marketingland.com/study-telecoms-have-been-throttling-youtube-and-netflix-since-demise-of-net-neutrality-247346

https://www.slashgear.com/us-carriers-allegedly-throttling-youtube-netflix-streaming-04544424/

Here are some links to an event that happened back in 2011 (Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of their own app)

Spoiler

https://www.droid-life.com/2012/12/10/verizon-responds-to-fcc-complaint-over-blocking-of-google-wallet-says-google-needs-to-change-the-app/

https://www.androidpolice.com/2013/05/01/a-brief-history-of-verizon-and-google-wallet-and-why-the-carrier-is-still-allowed-to-block-it/

https://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12

https://www.businessinsider.com/blocked-no-google-wallet-for-verizon-customers-2011-12

https://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/technology/verizon_blocks_google_wallet/index.htm

Here are links to a lot of peoples take on the matter (Pros and cons)

Spoiler

https://www.bustle.com/p/10-net-neutrality-pros-cons-because-the-debate-is-more-complicated-than-you-might-realize-7590395

http://www.itpro.co.uk/strategy/28115/the-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

https://vittana.org/13-pros-and-cons-of-net-neutrality

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-positive-effects-of-repealing-net-neutrality-It-would-never-pass-without-have-any-positive-effects-so-there-must-be-bigs-ones-for-this-sort-of-decision

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/062014/what-you-need-know-about-net-neutrality.asp

https://www.flashrouters.com/blog/2017/12/08/net-neutrality-the-pros-and-cons/

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-20171213-htmlstory.html

http://fortune.com/2017/11/21/what-net-neutrality-means-for-you/

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/does-net-neutrality-help-or-harm-innovation

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/06/11/net-neutrality-nixed-by-fcc-what-to-know-about-internet-regulations.html

 

[Trik'Stari]

22 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Something not a lot of people are going to tell you or ignore to be the case, but Net Neutrality was never really enforced thankfully and from the conception of the internet to pre NN in 2015. The internet was fine, it's really hard to say what NN would've done had it been enforced more strongly but I don't think it would've been good.

You really lack any sources here, let alone any justifications for your statements.

[handymanshandle]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

You really lack any sources here, let alone any justifications for your statements.

Well I was just putting my 2¢ in on the issue, I wasn't really looking to elaborate. just a here's what I think about it.

[Trik'Stari]

9 hours ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Treating ISPs like utilities stifles competition.

 

How many choices of electric and gas companies do you have?
Only one?
How many choices do you have for telephone companies aside from like AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint?

Only a couple?

The problem is that there IS little to no competition as is. These companies go out of their way to avoid overlap as much as they can. Hell, the FTC and the FCC have both recently decided that any area where there is a single ISP available, counts as competitive. Because someone "could" start their own company. Nevermind the laws currently in place favoring the already existing company (courtesy of lobbying).

 

So, a single company providing a service, is somehow competitive. Nevermind the issues like in NYC where certain companies got money from the government (not subsidies this time, actual contract) to provide broadband to every residential building in the city. Their (the ISP) interpretation was "run internet past the buildings down the street. Approach the owners/landlords, offer an agreement only if they agree to make us the sole ISP available for their tenants, if they don't accept, we won't provide internet to their tenants, we tried and that somehow counts"

 

The courts disagreed with that interpretation.

 

Moreover, they take taxpayer money for updating their infrastructure (in the form of subsidies), then don't update their infrastructure. They have been doing so since the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed. Meanwhile I'm still stuck with a single provider, using ADSL over 30 year old copper phone line.

 

I'm generally against government intervention in things. They are RARELY if ever a good solution. But in this case, NN is necessary. "We won't make as much profit" is not an acceptable argument. If you can't survive without making 9000000% profit on something, then you shouldn't survive as a company. Profit is the luxury of owning a business, not a necessity. A company exists to bring a product or service to market at a competitive price.