Net Neutrality

[accadacca]

Nobody is talking about this?????

----


WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle rules (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html) regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet, granting broadband companies the power to potentially reshape Americans’ online experiences.

[BruteForce]

Unreal! We hand over most of the Internet to world wide control, then dismantle Net Neutrality. What world am I living in? The US created the Internet, circa Usenet, circa UU Net, circa Milnet. now, we allow China and N. Korea to hack us over the very fabric of communications we created and seem to be able to do nothing about it? WTF, over!?!?

[Sombeech]

There's just no way that millions of americans can compete with all that money. Money will win almost every time.

Let's see if Trump looks into doing something about it.

[uintafly]

Is this draining the swamp or MAGA?

[dougr]

Netflix represents 37% of network traffic at peak times. Youtube about 15%. Combined those two are half of internet data. Contemplate that for a moment. That's a staggering level of data. Web browsing, in contrast, is only 6% of traffic. One of many links about this. (http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/)

Netflix is a nicely profitable (http://www.4-traders.com/NETFLIX-10189/financials/) company: 88561

Google is a nicely profitable (http://www.4-traders.com/ALPHABET-24203373/financials/) company: 88562

As of this article's (https://qz.com/790210/tracing-the-byzantine-maze-of-the-companies-that-have-come-to-control-americas-internet/) date, there were over 2500 ISPs in the nation. Doesn't it make sense that highly profitable commercial users of a significant amount of net capacity should pay more for use of the net? Their bits are more economically valuable than other bits at the moment, and expansion of capacity has to be paid for. Seems like a progressive idea to allow negotiation for such higher rates on commercial activity.

[Udink]

Doesn't it make sense that highly profitable commercial users of a significant amount of net capacity should pay more for use of the net?
Why? Just 'cause they have deep pockets that the ISPs want to pick?

Netflix already pays for their connection to the internet. I already pay for my connection to the internet. No, it doesn't make sense to charge Netflix more because I demand more of their content (which ultimately ends up costing me more).

My internet plan is already based on usage. If I go over a certain data limit each month, I'll be charged more. The source of that traffic shouldn't be discriminated against just because my ISP wants a chunk of Netflix's profits. How does that make any sense?

[dougr]

My internet plan is already based on usage. If I go over a certain data limit each month, I'll be charged more. The source of that traffic shouldn't be discriminated against just because my ISP wants a chunk of Netflix's profits. How does that make any sense?

Your internet plan is cheap and unlimited because we've had a genuine market here that has created generous capacity and low latency. Our basically unlimited net is the envy of the world. But it won't continue to be with NN.

And no, Netflix does not pay its freight on the net. It's freeloading, as are you, in getting a subsidized low Netflix rate. All data bits paying the same rate is not fair and not logical, how can you argue otherwise? In no other facet of business would you logically argue that. Is it better or worse that First Class air passengers pay more of the fuel bill for a flight? Same terminals, same plane, same pilots, same arrival. Is it better or worse that better cuts of meat cost more even when from the same farm shipped in the same truck handled by the same butcher sitting on the same shelves? Is it better or worse that more valuable packages can be shipped faster through not only private package carriers but through the govt run post office itself? Is it better or worse that cities have built dedicated roadways to service and keep commercial truck traffic off highways? Is it better or worse that higher valued autos pay more in tax to travel the same roads that econo cars use? On and on the examples of higher value cargo/things paying more to make the system work better for the benefit of all, and determined by their economic value, with rates set by the give and take of business and not the hammer of political hacks seeking votes.

Not to mention that those who have invested in the net have every right to demand a return, which you incorrectly call picking the pocket of Netflix. No, Netflix is reaping fat rewards from abusing the network. Yes, damn right Netflix profits should go more toward increasing capacity, as they are driving the increased need for capacity and crowding out low value use. Netflix and the other giants are not only stealing from all of us but have convinced people like you that the opposite is occurring. Amazing.

In the end, if backbone providers drag their feet or charge rates beyond reasonable for carriage, then Google, Netflix, FB, and other resource abusers can _easily_ build their own backbone. That in the end benefits all of us further. You completely and naively disregard the Econ 101 principle that higher prices draw more supply and instead view them as some sort of evil.

[Scott P]

Is it better or worse that higher valued autos pay more in tax to travel the same roads that econo cars use?

From a highway engineering standpoint, economy cars should pay a lot less.

Now, back to net neutrality.

One thing that may be worth mentioning that I haven't seen in any of the news stories is that internet providers don't pay for access to highway right of way to install their fiber and other connection lines. In fact a lot of the infrastructure itself is paid for with highway funds. It actually costs the feds and states a huge amount of money accommodating the internet providers during almost all construction projects (even out in the middle of nowhere). Almost all towns and cities are connected with lines using land that was paid for the taxpayers.

I wonder if and how this will affect net neutrality or lack thereof?

[rockgremlin]

Your internet plan is cheap and unlimited because we've had a genuine market here that has created generous capacity and low latency. Our basically unlimited net is the envy of the world. But it won't continue to be with NN.

And no, Netflix does not pay its freight on the net. It's freeloading, as are you, in getting a subsidized low Netflix rate. All data bits paying the same rate is not fair and not logical, how can you argue otherwise? In no other facet of business would you logically argue that. Is it better or worse that First Class air passengers pay more of the fuel bill for a flight? Same terminals, same plane, same pilots, same arrival. Is it better or worse that better cuts of meat cost more even when from the same farm shipped in the same truck handled by the same butcher sitting on the same shelves? Is it better or worse that more valuable packages can be shipped faster through not only private package carriers but through the govt run post office itself? Is it better or worse that cities have built dedicated roadways to service and keep commercial truck traffic off highways? Is it better or worse that higher valued autos pay more in tax to travel the same roads that econo cars use? On and on the examples of higher value cargo/things paying more to make the system work better for the benefit of all, and determined by their economic value, with rates set by the give and take of business and not the hammer of political hacks seeking votes.

Not to mention that those who have invested in the net have every right to demand a return, which you incorrectly call picking the pocket of Netflix. No, Netflix is reaping fat rewards from abusing the network. Yes, damn right Netflix profits should go more toward increasing capacity, as they are driving the increased need for capacity and crowding out low value use. Netflix and the other giants are not only stealing from all of us but have convinced people like you that the opposite is occurring. Amazing.

In the end, if backbone providers drag their feet or charge rates beyond reasonable for carriage, then Google, Netflix, FB, and other resource abusers can _easily_ build their own backbone. That in the end benefits all of us further. You completely and naively disregard the Econ 101 principle that higher prices draw more supply and instead view them as some sort of evil.


This is the first rational attempt at making sense of the NN removal debate. Ever since news broke last week that NN was on life support, I've only heard one side of the story. And all along I had been wanting to hear the other side of the debate. But the closest I got to that was that pathetic, limp-wristed, embarrassing Youtube video that Ajit Pai made. What a joke.

So thanks for making a reasonable, sensible argument. I'm still not 100% convinced that abolishing NN is for the best, but at least your reasoning makes sense.

[Udink]

And no, Netflix does not pay its freight on the net.
Explain how this is the case and maybe I will get around to reading the rest of your post. ISPs and backbone providers can and do charge based on usage. If Netflix is supplying more data, and I'm demanding more data, then it seems logical that internet providers can profit more from that increased usage alone without having to differentiate between types of data. Oh, unless you're Comcast and want to block Netflix from using your network so that you can sell more cable TV subscriptions.

[rockgremlin]

Oh, unless you're Comcast and want to block Netflix from using your network so that you can sell more cable TV subscriptions.

This is what I'm afraid of.

[Scott P]

. Oh, unless you're Comcast and want to block Netflix from using your network so that you can sell more cable TV subscriptions.

This was one of the primary concerns of why net neutrality was put into place.

This really isn't a strictly partisan issue either as a lot of conservative groups, such as several gun rights advocacy sites and groups want net neutrality to stay in place. The NRA itself hasn't weighted in, but other gun advocacy sites have. The fear is that as an example, if a CEO for a major internet service provider is pro-gun control, he or she could slow down or stop people from visiting pro-gun sites.

Since the internet existed before net neutrality, a lot of fears are probably overblown, but the questions are interesting.

[Sombeech]

The fear is that as an example, if a CEO for a major internet service provider is pro-gun control, he or she could slow down or stop people from visiting pro-gun sites.


Facebook, YouTube and Google are already curbing the trends of some conservative leaning material to some extent. We saw this during the elections with the autofill predictions of Hillary vs Trump on Google. Then YouTube is placing some conservative leaning videos to Restricted Mode viewing only because of "hate speech", like Prager University has proven so many of their videos have fallen victim to.

So the attempts at censoring the true trends by corporations leaning a certain political way, has already been happening. Now all that's left is to decide which kind of material deserves the full internet speed, and which material is "hate speech" and should be throttled down. This seems to be the new definition of "Tolerance".

[twotimer]

It will be interesting to see how the information gets to us in the years to come...considering now it's a circus of tabloid trash will a lot of bullshit mixed in. This may be giving the media giants too much power.

More censorship and higher prices? Some say the opposite will happen. I've heard some very reasonable arguments that it's really no big deal...fears overblown like everything else. My main concern is similar to what Scott said about some of those gun groups...they would have to power to continue shaping "social engineering". I think we've got enough of that crap goin' on now.

If nothing happens to change it, I'll be interested to pop into this thread in a year or so. Heck, five years from now...what will the circus look like then?

[devo_stevo]

Well, this is what it looked like 7 years ago... http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?37191-Your-ISP-if-Net-Neutrality-disappears-(PIC)

[twotimer]

Well, this is what it looked like 7 years ago... http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthread.php?37191-Your-ISP-if-Net-Neutrality-disappears-(PIC)Ha, what a trip. A lot goin' on in that little thread.

[nelsonccc]

For me it's simple. Anything the govt gets involved in turns to shit. They literally do nothing well without a ton of overhead and bureaucracy. I'm glad they repealed NN. Get the govt out of it and let the market dictate.