Does anybody have a take on net neutrality?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Mobb and worms are too stupid to understand what I'm saying so I'll try and make it clear.

 

There are already laws on the books to stop ISPs from throttling you. Adding more laws isn't going to change a focking thing.

Yeah. Im sure there was no reason at all the companies lobbied hard, and even used fake identities during the public comment phase. None at all.

[Cdub100 3,380]

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-243556A1.pdf

 

This is what they used to enforce net neutrality for 10 years prior to it being made into law. Feel free to keep making statements on a topic you clearly have no knowledge of though, it is board tradition after all.

 

You believe remarks made at conference are what holds up in a court? Holy sh1t

 

Got any memos on gun control while you're at it?

[mobb_deep 917]

Let me phrase this so a toddler can understand.

 

The internet is a utility. Just like electricity, water, etc. We already paid for this utility, via this thing called federal taxation. Now, were going to pay again. That is bad,.

[Cdub100 3,380]

Yeah. Im sure there was no reason at all the companies lobbied hard, and even used fake identities during the public comment phase. None at all.

 

I'm not denying ISPs can be scummy. All I'm saying is they are not allowed to do what you guys think they are going to do. If they do. They will be sued just like they where before N.N.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

You believe remarks made at conference are what holds up in a court? Holy sh1t

 

Got any memos on gun control while you're at it?

 

Jesus, first you tell us about these magical laws (which don't exist and you certainly haven't made any attempt to present them), now you claim that the plan put forth by the guy running the damn FCC is not actually what is being put in place. Arguing with you is the ultimate act in futility, like discussing the legality of illegal aliens with torridjoe. At least the other posters who take opposing viewpoints make some effort to be informed on a subject and discuss it using evidence and not blank hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

[Cdub100 3,380]

Let me phrase this so a toddler can understand.

 

The internet is a utility. Just like electricity, water, etc. We already paid for this utility, via this thing called federal taxation. Now, were going to pay again. That is bad,.

 

The internet being a utility is bad for the consumer, but you're too stupid to realize that.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

This is real easy for me. Whatever Comcast is for, Im against. And vice versa.

[Cdub100 3,380]

 

Jesus, first you tell us about these magical laws (which don't exist and you certainly haven't made any attempt to present them), now you claim that the plan put forth by the guy running the damn FCC is not actually what is being put in place. Arguing with you is the ultimate act in futility, like discussing the legality of illegal aliens with torridjoe. At least the other posters who take opposing viewpoints make some effort to be informed on a subject and discuss it using evidence and not blank hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims.

 

I'm not the one posting speaker notes from a conference and trying to pass them off as law.

 

Sorry not sorry I called you on your bullsh1t

[mobb_deep 917]

 

The internet being a utility is bad for the consumer, but you're too stupid to realize that.

Pics of your well, or stfu...

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

I'm not the one posting speaker notes from a conference and trying to pass them off as law.

 

Sorry not sorry I called you on your bullsh1t

 

You are the one claiming there is currently existing law that prevents service providers from throttling and other such acts, to which you still have not provided the least bit of evidence.

[Cdub100 3,380]

Pics of your well, or stfu...

 

Most wells are under ground. My house doesn't have one, but my mother does. Should I take a photo of her water softener for you?

[Cdub100 3,380]

 

You are the one claiming there is currently existing law that prevents service providers from throttling and other such acts, to which you still have not provided the least bit of evidence.

 

Before "N.N." did ISPs who broke the law have to go to court and change their practice? This is a simple yes or no.

 

If you answer yes you're being truthful and proves NN didn't change anything other than stifle innovation

 

If you answer no you're a liar or dumb

[ZeroTolerance 582]

 

Before "N.N." did ISPs who broke the law have to go to court and change their practice? This is a simple yes or no.

 

If you answer yes you're being truthful and proves NN didn't change anything other than stifle innovation

 

If you answer no you're a liar or dumb

 

The FCC did not enforce any laws because there weren't any. They had no more than a set of principles, which I posted before, which they used to enforce network neutrality. Ajit Pai has blatantly stated that with the repeal of the NN law, ISPs will be allowed to do things such as charge a fee to a website or service in exchange for preferential treatment, which he has tried to pass off as beneficial. The only thing the FCC is expecting now is for ISPs to be transparent about their actions, not restricting ISPs from performing them. They effectively are arguing that the free market will encourage service providers not to do things that would not be in the best interests of customers or websites, which ignores the fact that the free market effect isn't very useful when several ISPs hold local monopolies on internet service.

[Cdub100 3,380]

So basically we have a few posters who read some fake news headlines and think they know what they fock they are talking about. One poster thinks speaker notes are law another poster thinks government utilities are a bounty of innovation.

 

It really is sad. The REAL crime is data caps but y'all too stupid to realize that,

[mobb_deep 917]

So basically we have a few posters who read some fake news headlines and think they know what they fock they are talking about. One poster thinks speaker notes are law another poster thinks government utilities are a bounty of innovation.

 

It really is sad. The REAL crime is data caps but y'all too stupid to realize that,

Exactly! You finally got it!

[ZeroTolerance 582]

So basically we have a few posters who read some fake news headlines and think they know what they fock they are talking about. One poster thinks speaker notes are law another poster thinks government utilities are a bounty of innovation.

 

It really is sad. The REAL crime is data caps but y'all too stupid to realize that,

 

Here are the words from the horse's mouth, as in the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom declaratory ruling itself:

 

"The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable.502 The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”503 Today’s reclassification also restores the FTC’s authority to take enforcement action against unfair acts or practices. An unfair act or practice is one that creates substantial consumer harm, is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers, and that consumers could not reasonably have avoided.504 a unilateral change in a material term of a contract can be an unfair practice.505 The FTC’s 2007 Report on Broadband Industry Practices raises the possibility that an ISP that starts treating traffic from different edge providers differently without notifying consumers and obtaining their consent may be engaging in a practice that would be considered unfair under the FTC Act.506 142. Many of the largest ISPs have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content.507 These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.

As discussed below, we believe that case-by-case, ex post regulation better serves a dynamic industry like the Internet and reduces the risk of overregulation. We also reject assertions that the FTC has insufficient authority, because, as Verizon argues, “f broadband service providers’ conduct falls outside [the FTC’s] grant of jurisdiction—that is, if their actions cannot be described as anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive—then the conduct should not be banned in the first place.”510 And the transparency rule that we announce today should allay any concerns about the ambiguity of ISP commitments,511 by requiring ISPs to disclose if the ISPs block or throttle legal content. Finally, we expect that any attempt by ISPs to undermine the openness of the Internet would be resisted by consumers and edge providers."

 

 

Notice that nowhere does it say throttling would be prohibited, only that throttling without disclosure to the consumer would be (as a deceptive practice), and throttling is literally being prevented at this time by the companies saying "we won't do that". They intend to let the free market decide whether these ISPs engage in acts such as offering preferential treatment at a cost, and that the consumer will regulate them by choosing whether to continue paying for their services...a wonderful concept in a world where people have multiple choices (the hilarious part is that this is practically the complete inverse of the Obamacare debate where Republicans argued that part of why Obamacare is bad is that customers don't have the right to cross state lines to find a better insurance provider and thus are hurt by a lack of competition, but in this case they are arguing that everything will be alright in a market where...customers don't have the ability to pick and choose from multiple competing services because they are limited to what is in their area). I have about 6 hours before work, so I will just have to look forward to the brilliant counter-argument that is sure to follow.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

ISP companies evil + ISP companies pushed hard for this = this is bad.

[wiffleball 4,639]

Yeah. Im sure there was no reason at all the companies lobbied hard, and even used fake identities during the public comment phase. None at all.

Zactly

[naomi 343]

Between this young man breaking it down on Twitter (he's personally mostly against the repeal)..

 

and this (argues for it)...

 

 

Economists love to divide goods into different categories according to the characteristics of “rivalry” and “excludability.” Most goods are considered “private goods,” meaning that they are both rivalrous (consumption by one person affects to ability to be consumed by another person) and excludable (we can prevent people from consuming the good). Economists typically consider the internet to be of a different category: a “club good.” This is a good that is excludable, but non-rivalrous — meaning that consumption by one person does not affect the ability for another person to consume the good.

But this classification reveals the internet ignorance on the part of economists. Internet bandwidth is absolutely a rivalrous good. With cable internet, I share access to the same cable line as all of my neighbors. If we are on the internet simultaneously, we are vying for bandwidth. This is precisely why the internet tends to be slower during the hours of high-usage; if bandwidth were truly non-rivalrous, there would be no variation in speeds according to consumption. All internet service providers deal with this scarcity.

​

Because of this consumer rivalry, internet providers have started discussing the possibility of throttling certain services or charging companies extra for priority treatment. Netflix, for instance, is responsible for nearly 37% of all internet traffic. The other 63% of internet traffic now has to compete with a single website for bandwidth. With the popularity of Netflix, it is no wonder that the idea of charging the company a premium for its access to bandwidth is upsetting to people, but this is little more than an innovation in the way these resources are allocated.



The traditional model of allocating bandwidth is to charge the customer for certain tiers of speed. But with certain websites like Netflix accounting for such a dominant portion of this consumption, the internet consumer who does not have a Netflix subscription is effectively subsidizing the consumption habits of the Netflix user. The idea of charging companies like Netflix a premium is a way to levy the cost of such high traffic websites on the people who actually use them, rather then spreading them across all users whether they consumer these services are not.



Last week,

to encourage the FCC to impose Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality professes to regulate internet prices in a “neutral” way, as the name implies. This means preventing companies from throttling internet speeds for certain users or charging extra fees for priority service.



But the reality of the scarcity of internet bandwidth cannot be legislated away. If Net Neutrality were to become policy, internet service providers will have to find alternative solutions for allocating bandwidth in an industry now contending with a disrupted price mechanism. Most likely, this would mean charging consumers higher prices for faster speeds than would otherwise be necessary, or placing data caps on home internet, as some service providers have already started to do.



Murray Rothbard once said it is no crime to be ignorant of economics. Likewise, it is no crime to be ignorant of the workings of the internet. But (if I may take some liberty with his quote) it is entirely irresponsible to voice an opinion on Net Neutrality, while remaining in this state of ignorance.

 

hmmm..

[Djgb13 2,338]

Well I dunno if its just a coincidence or not but my internet has gone out and has been out for almost an hour now. Its apparently like for a lot of people. Kinda fishy that it happens the Day net neutrality is repealed

[wiffleball 4,639]

Well I dunno if its just a coincidence or not but my internet has gone out and has been out for almost an hour now. Its apparently like for a lot of people. Kinda fishy that it happens the Day net neutrality is repealed

That's because Starbucks is closed. Go home.

[listen2me 23 1,541]

My internet is actually out as well

[naomi 343]

The FCC did not enforce any laws because there weren't any. They had no more than a set of principles, which I posted before, which they used to enforce network neutrality. Ajit Pai has blatantly stated that with the repeal of the NN law, ISPs will be allowed to do things such as charge a fee to a website or service in exchange for preferential treatment, which he has tried to pass off as beneficial. The only thing the FCC is expecting now is for ISPs to be transparent about their actions, not restricting ISPs from performing them. They effectively are arguing that the free market will encourage service providers not to do things that would not be in the best interests of customers or websites, which ignores the fact that the free market effect isn't very useful when several ISPs hold local monopolies on internet service.

 

 

So basically we have a few posters who read some fake news headlines and think they know what they fock they are talking about. One poster thinks speaker notes are law another poster thinks government utilities are a bounty of innovation.

 

It really is sad. The REAL crime is data caps but y'all too stupid to realize that,

 

 

Cdub...find what you're talking about in here (this is where it would be): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5

 

NN meant classifying broadband under 2: Common Carriers from the previous 1.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,579]

so in all honesty, why can't like Sprint or TMobile jump in and give us home hotspots for everything

[naomi 343]

Yeah. Im sure there was no reason at all the companies lobbied hard, and even used fake identities during the public comment phase. None at all.

 

Playing Devil's Advocate here.

 

Abject greed on the ISPs' part, or...

 

 

Even before Title II was being discussed, ISPs were panicked about monopoly regulation. In 2013, Verizon sued and, for the most part, won to block an earlier net neutrality policy. The FCC wasn’t using Title II then, but a weaker provision—Title I, Section 706—which does not classify ISPs as common carriers. (And it didn’t apply to wireless carriers.) Still, Verizon was afraid the FCC would try to impose monopoly regulation, the company told me in a recent conversation. Verizon’s lawsuit was essentially a redo of a 2010 Comcast suit before the same D.C. Court of Appeals that had struck down a similar net neutrality policy based on Section 706.

Ironically, both companies now advocate Section 706 regulations almost identical to what they fought against because they are so spooked by the prospect of Title II monopoly regulation—and perhaps because they know they can beat it in a lawsuit.

 

 

 

similar to how almost all of us are uncomfortable with the uncertainty now:

 

 

 

Tom Wheeler’s FCC promised not to go this far, by forbearing, or refraining, from utilizing most of Title II. “In finding that broadband internet access service is subject to Title II, we simultaneously exercise the Commission’s forbearance authority to forbear from 30 statutory provisions and render over 700 codified rules inapplicable,” the Order reads.

ISPs aren’t buying it. “Even if the FCC decides to forbear from regulating [iSPs] from certain or many provisions of Title II in the near term, the fact that at any time it could implement additional rules under Title II jurisdiction creates uncertainty in the industry,” reads Comcast’s comments to the FCC.

 

 

 

Depending on your business strategy as an ISP, you could be found in violation by the FCC. (I realize that still applies, and is a captain obvious statement..)

 

As observers we assume the government is ethically enforcing the laws, but what if by having regulation in their back-pocket, to potentially use, the few people ultimately making these decisions in the FCC could be steered by a competing company or other interests, who are not wanting to see the success of that companies strategy? It sounds like this approach in this quote, under NN, under Wheeler, possibly allowed for elite favoring arbitrary judgement.

 

The posters pointing out the practices that have persisted through no NN and NN gel with this. The winners are exchanged somewhat, ethics are probably not improved on either way.

 

Mulder had it right with Trust No One.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,631]

Yeah, I don't know much about all this, but experience has taught me a few things. One of them is if entities, in this case the telecom companies, throw a ton of money at both sides of the political aisle, it's probably not good for me.

[bandrus1 413]

I'm calling it now.. Apple has sat on the sidelines for years on top of MT Everest of cash and shareholders have been annoyed by it.

 

I'm calling that this will be the time Apple takes that cash and shifts it into a new industry and dominates an entire area

[supermike80 1,285]

Yeah, I don't know much about all this, but experience has taught me a few things. One of them is if entities, in this case the telecom companies, throw a ton of money at both sides of the political aisle, it's probably not good for me.

I agree however I have learned if celebrities back something, it's probably dumb. And celebs are in a tizzy over this

[edjr 5,562]

18 states are suing FCC. Including MA and NY

[Mike Honcho 4,023]

Just found out that during the public comment phase of this, millions of stolen identities logged faked comments in favor of repealing net neutrality. Fantastic.

 

Saw that a lot were signed, Not Vladimir Putin...really, it's not me.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Generally whenever we see something like this, it's when a company has not been maximizing profit in comparison to their charges. In other words they are angling to charge the same while providing less service. They know that 95% of their customer base won't notice anything if the bill stays the same.

[Mike Honcho 4,023]

Exactly! You finally got it!

I am totally interested in what proposal Trump and co could make that Cdub would oppose...

[IGotWorms 3,310]

That's because Starbucks is closed. Go home.

[Reality 2,710]

I am totally interested in what proposal Trump and co could make that Cdub would oppose...

 

How much time do you spend admonishing the left?

 

Pot, meet Kettle..

[edjr 5,562]

That's because Starbucks is closed. Go home.

 

[Mike Honcho 4,023]

How much time do you spend admonishing the left?

 

Pot, meet Kettle..

I might not admonish them since there are more than enough of you to do that, but I don't defend every single one of their positions, which is what I was wondering about Cdub.

 

Reading comprehension, try it.

[Reality 2,710]

I might not admonish them since there are more than enough of you to do that, but I don't defend every single one of their positions, which is what I was wondering about Cdub.

 

Reading comprehension, try it.

 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[Cdub100 3,380]

The problem is you guys think net neutrality mean neutral. It doesn't. All it means is more government control. It means treating every ISP as a monopoly.

 

In the 20+ years of the internet as we've come to know it we didn't have this problem and when ISPs went too far they got slapped down. All of a sudden you guys think the internet was in danger and demanded the government take it over and regulate it like a utility which is stupid.

 

Net neutrality is as neutral as the affordable Care act is affordable.

[TD Ryan2 314]

The problem is you guys think net neutrality mean neutral. It doesn't. All it means is more government control. It means treating every ISP as a monopoly.

 

In the 20+ years of the internet as we've come to know it we didn't have this problem and when ISPs went too far they got slapped down. All of a sudden you guys think the internet was in danger and demanded the government take it over and regulate it like a utility which is stupid.

 

Net neutrality is as neutral as the affordable Care act is affordable.

not a bad post Cdub - I get it, you don't want the govm't regulating things - and that's a fair stance to have -.

in your own post, you state "it means treating every ISP like a monopoly"... aren't they a monopoly? why not treat them as such?

 

The internet is really still in its early stages... the idea that, "it's been like this already" isn't a good one - society is still figuring out what do do with it and what impacts it can/will have.

I don't think anyone wants the government to run/manage the internet nor do I think anyone want the monopoly ISPs to control what/when/how we can access content.

To me, having the government simply say, "you cannot control what/when/how the public accesses content" is the better of those two choices.

Again, I'm open to the idea of why removing net neutrality is a good thing - when/how did ISP get "slapped down" when they went too far? For most people, the ISP they have is the only game in town... a monopoly... there is no way to slap them down... and refusing their services is refusing internet access... and that's about at acceptable as refusing electricity or acces to highways.

Cdub - I'm not here to fight with you - just trying to understand the Pro's / Con's of each side.

[iam90sbaby 2,125]

Seems like all the guys here that actually work in IT think getting rid of NN is a bad thing, that should tell you something.