Net Neutrality

Ad

  • Fri, Dec 15, 2017 1:22 PM
    posted by Automatik

    I'm taking a wait and see approach, but if it results in what I'm hearing from the "sky is falling" side, we'll all be pissed off. 

    Well, service was fine for years prior to the last 2 years, so it should be fine going forward. 

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 4:41 PM
    posted by justincredible

    Not sure if you saw it, but there is a lot of discussion on this in the impressed by Trump thread. 

    Can you move the NN posts over to this thread?  We need enough space in the trump thread to talk about how impressed we are.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 5:40 PM

    I don't have that functionality built in yet, but I might be able to do it at the database level. I'll test that out tomorrow and see what I can do.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 6:02 PM

    Ok, I was able to easily move posts over in the database. Timeline is a little off as the first reply is before the OP, but whatever.

    Fri, Dec 15, 2017 7:33 PM

    A few things: 

    1. Comparing cellular service to internet service is not fair. Most people have multiple choices for cell phone providers, but that can't be said for home internet service providers. 

    2. "The internet was fine before they passed net neutrality" is a really poor way to look at it. The FCC regulations effectively slammed the door in the face of companies that have a financial incentive to categorize and upcharge what you do on the internet. To use this argument is effectively the same as saying "as a smoker, i have the right to smoke in hospitals unless it's explicitly stated that I cant)"

    3. The repeal of the rules more or less punts the policing responsibility to the FTC instead of the FCC.

    Personally, I think it's in the FCC's realm and they should be doing the policing. There's few services in the world that need regulated, but the free flow of information should probably be one of them.

    NN probably wasn't necessary in the mid-to-late 90's because there was a plethora of companies around. The "big boys" started buying up the little guys and now you're stuck with a select few companies that are more or less structured to stay out of one another's footprint. That's a recipe for disaster.

    Also worth mentioning: regulating the internet affects innovation in no way shape or form. ISP's essentially buy internet access wholesale from someone else and resell it. NN regulation effectively told them "keep doing what you're doing, but you can't segregate that wholesale internet access into separate categories and charge more for it".

     

     

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 10:03 AM

    I’m still not sure what the hell any of this means (if anyone wants to give me a ELI5 rundown that would be amazing), but I’m just hoping I can continue to jump on free porn sites wherever and whenever I want. That’s all. 

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 12:14 PM
    posted by SportsAndLady

    I’m still not sure what the hell any of this means (if anyone wants to give me a ELI5 rundown that would be amazing), but I’m just hoping I can continue to jump on free porn sites wherever and whenever I want. That’s all. 

    I think this sums up my level of overall comprehension, too. I see all these outraged reactions online, but I can't find my way to even care until someone gives me a reason to by doing something like jacking up my rates to do the stuff I usually do online. I trust the "sky is falling" reactions to this as much as I trusted them when it was QQ talking about the Obama presidency.

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 1:32 PM
    posted by SportsAndLady

    I’m still not sure what the hell any of this means (if anyone wants to give me a ELI5 rundown that would be amazing), but I’m just hoping I can continue to jump on free porn sites wherever and whenever I want. That’s all. 

    simple explanation:

    picture that you own a big box store and you're the exclusive seller of boxes in your area.  you have an agreement with the box supplier that you may have as many (or as few) boxes as you want as long as you pay them a flat fee of $100 per month. 

    grandma comes to your store and buys some boxes. she's using them in her attic to store clothing. you decide to charge her $1 per box. 

    Joe Shmoe comes to your store looking to purchase boxes. Joe Shmoe is a douchebag and makes crafts and sells them on etsy. he plans to send the crafts to other people in your stores footprint, and he needs boxes to ship the items. Since your store also sells crafts, you decide to charge Joe Shmoe $2 per box since he is intruding on your turf.

    Store Neturality is passed. It enforces a rule that you, as a store, cannot charge people different prices based on what they're using their boxes for. you're effectively barred from asking the customers what you're using boxes for. 

    In the above example, you're the ISP (comcast, spectrum, etc). Joe Shmoe is building a website in his basement called netflix. Store Neturality is the FFC regulations passed in 2015. 

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 2:12 PM

    If Netflix was in favor of it, I doubt it was helping the little man in the first place. So the Dems who are anti big business are in favor of something that was only helping big business? Color me not worried at all, and certainly not the chicken little bullshit the people on social media were making it

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 4:42 PM
    posted by MontyBrunswick

    store neuturality is passed. It enforces a rule that you, as a store, cannot charge people different prices based on what they're using their boxes for. you're effectively barred from asking the customers what you're using boxes for. 

    First off, price discrimination/gouging is illegal, has been and continues to be so without NN. 

    Second, blocking or price favoring certain apps/sites/services is also illegal under anti-competition/monopoly rules, as VZW and AT&T (among others) have paid hefty fines for in the past.  Again, existing law has been handling this just fine.

    Third, this fearmongering about paying different access fees for facebook, or Netflix, or Youtube or whatever is simply idiotic.  Why would the ISP's bother with something so complicated when they could just go to metered pricing (which NN doesn't prevent them from doing, but let's drive them in that direction with unneccessary NN regulations)?  Then they give you bandwidth for Comcast OnDemand for free (except you're paying $5 for it, so "free" or "favored" pricing would be very debatable).  If you're not going to let me optimize the consumer experience with network mangement, if 4k UHD video takes up 80% of internet traffic and you tie my hands on pricing....then there's really no other solution and nothing more fair than metered pricing.

    Again, use and enforce existing law.  Modernize outdated laws for evolving technology.  You don't need another regulatoy body and more govt bureacracy.  NN is an absolute sledgehammer for something that has generally been working very well and needs minor tweaking as we go along.

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 4:45 PM

    By the way, 5G cellular data is just around the corner and VZW (and undoubtedly AT&T) are going to be offering it as a home broadband choice.  So things are about to get much more competitive, which is another blow to the case for needing NN regulations.

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 4:57 PM
    posted by iclfan2

    If Netflix was in favor of it, I doubt it was helping the little man in the first place. So the Dems who are anti big business are in favor of something that was only helping big business? Color me not worried at all, and certainly not the chicken little bullshit the people on social media were making it

    I also found it funny how people made this a big corp vs the little guys issue.  Uhh you do realize Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Netflix, etc were funding the fight for NN right?  Do people actually think they were fighting for NN for pure good and not to gain from this?  If so, they are dumber and more delusional than I thought. 

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 5:22 PM
    posted by gut

    First off, price discrimination/gouging is illegal, has been and continues to be so without NN. 

    Second, blocking or price favoring certain apps/sites/services is also illegal under anti-competition/monopoly rules, as VZW and AT&T (among others) have paid hefty fines for in the past.  Again, existing law has been handling this just fine.

    Third, this fearmongering about paying different access fees for facebook, or Netflix, or Youtube or whatever is simply idiotic.  Why would the ISP's bother with something so complicated when they could just go to metered pricing (which NN doesn't prevent them from doing, but let's drive them in that direction with unneccessary NN regulations)?  Then they give you bandwidth for Comcast OnDemand for free (except you're paying $5 for it, so "free" or "favored" pricing would be very debatable).  If you're not going to let me optimize the consumer experience with network mangement, if 4k UHD video takes up 80% of internet traffic and you tie my hands on pricing....then there's really no other solution and nothing more fair than metered pricing.

    Again, use and enforce existing law.  Modernize outdated laws for evolving technology.  You don't need another regulatoy body and more govt bureacracy.  NN is an absolute sledgehammer for something that has generally been working very well and needs minor tweaking as we go along.

    I'm not arguing for or against it. IMO, the FCC should be the one enforcing the rules instead of the FTC because the FCC regulates communication, and the internet is a backbone for communication (telephone, voip, etc). 

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 5:23 PM
    posted by gut

    By the way, 5G cellular data is just around the corner and VZW (and undoubtedly AT&T) are going to be offering it as a home broadband choice.  So things are about to get much more competitive, which is another blow to the case for needing NN regulations.

    I agree that eventually this will be the go-to for internet access for everyone. 

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 5:30 PM
    posted by like_that

    I also found it found how people made this a big corp vs the little guys issue.  Uhh you do realize Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Netflix, etc were funding the fight for NN right?  Do people actually think they were fighting for NN for pure good and not to gain from this?  If so, they are dumber and more delusional than I thought. 

    Right.  And I believe Netflix actually reversed course on NN.  Likely because it could potentially hurt them investing in infrastructure to deliver speeds and bandwidth to its consumers.  Their original NN argument with Comcast/VZW/etc was really about trying to strong-arm the ISP's into paying for investment to handle the massive demands of Netflix video content.

    One of my biggest beefs with NN is it completely ignores the reality that 4k UHD video is coming, which requires between 2-2.5X the bandwidth of 1080p video.  Netflix and Youtube alone, I believe, account for nearly 50% of internet traffic.  So we're talking potentially north of 70-80% of internet traffic for UHD video.  That's a HUGE issue when talking about delivering affordable internet speeds to people who don't watch much video online, much less UHD.  So the challenge becomes passing those costs onto the consumers of that video, and there are a variety of ways to do that - and we should see how the free market accomplishes that before getting in the way. 

    It's further complicated with the inevitability of "cable" ultimately being piped thru the internet instead (I believe that is how AT&T u-verse does it).  In truth, discounts on bundled services somewhat address the imbalance (i.e., you might pay $60 for internet plus $10 for Hulu, but $80 for internet and cable bundled together).  And I see absolutely nothing unfair or "anti-NN" with bundled packages.

    IMO, the whole NN argument is somewhat backwards.  The big players don't pay MORE, and almost never do in any industry.  They get volume discounts and leverage their size to get price concessions.  Investments by the big players have mainly trickled down to benefit ALL in terms of overall value of service vs. price.  You get in the way of investment, and then supply starts lagging behind demand and prices will increase for EVERYONE.  Netflix, Google, the ISP's and other big players duking it out over how to share those investment costs is not a NN issue and I'm not sure we need to regulate those negotiations.

    Sat, Dec 16, 2017 5:35 PM

    The other comical thing is the whole pricing boogeyman.  Granted, to be fair, most NN proponents seem to be more concerned with blocking and throttling.  But Netflix, for example, pays just PENNIES to stream each movie.  The cost of licensing content is a far bigger share of their operating costs.

    And so when I see mergers between big ISP's and content providers, THAT is when alarm bells start going off.  Because then you might only be able to rent that movie if you have AT&T, and maybe AT&T isn't offered in your area.  Bandwidth is pretty much a commodity.  NN misses the forest thru the trees in that CONTENT is where the pricing and power is.  I don't have to block or throttle Netflix - I just won't license my Disney & MGM content to Netflix.

    I do see a la carte pricing in the future, and I have serious doubts that's going to be a net positive for the consumer.  I think you do a little better with the big guys negotiating volume discounts.  Having a Netflix account and then having to pay additional fees to unlock Fox, MGM, Universal, and HBO content doesn't sound like I'll be getting better value.

    Mon, Dec 18, 2017 2:49 PM

    Why do i feel like everyone was for net neutrality when Obama was president? 

    Mon, Dec 18, 2017 5:51 PM
    posted by FatHobbit

    Why do i feel like everyone was for net neutrality when Obama was president? 

    On this site or in general?

    Mon, Dec 18, 2017 6:07 PM
    posted by like_that

    On this site or in general?

    On this site i thought

    Ad