Video: Net Neutrality is gone, where do we go from here?

[Xist]

I like fox news! Yes, I suppose I am a dumb ass over educated hillbilly :slight_smile:

Watching Fox News doesn't make you a dumb ass. It just means you like hot chics with big breasts.

If only the content of the show wasn't trash it might actually be worth watching.

As it stands, pretty puppets tell you what their Republican overlords write on the teleprompter, presumably without any ability to process the validity of its message.

The same can be said for many other news outlets on both the Republican and the Democratic sides.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I think the "OLD Guard" does not want innovation - NN allowed that protection - my opinion.

Cool - You have stated the NN laws, in the two years they were active, stifled innovation. Thats your opinion and you are more than entitled to it, i'm not trying to convince you otherwise and would never want to.

What I would like is to be able to see how you came to this conclusion so I can better understand your viewpoint.

Opinions are always built on something, or they'd just be assumptions: As requested in my previous response, please provide some examples of where/how the Net Neutrality laws that stopped the Internet from having an artificial speed limit that is relaxed for those who will pay and strengthened for those who will not, stifled innovation to cause you to adopt it as opinion.

Is there something about those laws that I was not aware of? Like they contained hidden or little known legislation that said the building of other technologies was prohibited? :slight_smile:

 

[Sraika]

Here's my $0.02

The first thing is, it's not over. There are quite a few massive companies that stand to lose over this. Sites like Netflix, Google, Facebook, and other bandwidth hungry services surely won't take this lying down. Just because it's overturned now doesn't mean it will stay that way. I suspect Ajit Pai and his lot are still playing checkers while the rest of the internet companies (and congress) are playing chess. The battle is lost, but the war is not over.

When it all comes down to it, the only thing this is going to drive, is customers to alternative sites. In the worst case scenario, I will own a subscription to Netflix to support them but stream the shows from pirate sites. It's actually what I did for a while when my media computer had issues running silverlight with the graphics drivers at the time. These "alternate" sites don't stay put forever. If ISP's block or throttle them, they will just change sites. It will be like a dance, an interpretive dance called "fuck you comcast". That's bad business for companies like Netflix. So they can't take this lying down.

Lastly greed, when left unchecked, will ruin everything. It might not be bad now, but it will be. Why you ask? Because corporations are impossible to keep cost efficient. For example, I used to work for a fairly large company that had a large billing department. The result of that was every receipt I generated incurred an additional processing cost of $105. By the time that one receipt was finally destroyed 7 years later, it cost the company $105 over and above the original cost. So if I bought a sticky note pad for $0.05, it actually cost the company $105.05... for a sticky note pad. This is just one example out of THOUSANDS why large corporations either need to push greed to the extreme, or they will die. The larger they are, the higher the overhead. The higher the overhead, the more they need to charge.

Normally, corporations will expand until their overhead makes the product or service too inflated. This then opens up the opportunity for smaller businesses to come in and actually profit. It naturally finds a balance between the economy of scale with big businesses vs. the lower overhead of small startups. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH ISP's. I can't just go out and start up a new ISP. All the copper in my area is owned by one company and all the fiber and wireless is owned by a second. The best part is, they don't directly compete. They each take their half of the pie leaving nothing available for anyone else. If I were to start up an ISP, I would need to use their copper, fiber, or wireless and they won't give it up.

On a nation wide scale, it is the same story on repeat. Want to start up a wireless service? You can't. Every last Hz of bandwidth is sold. It's not for sale. You would need to rent from... guess who. You want to start up a wired service? You can't. Not unless you had the money to bury your own lines. You would need to rent chunks of existing from... guess who again.

So right now, the FCC is trying to serve us up a sh!t sammich and trying to convince us it's pate on a cracker. There is no scenario that leads from here to anywhere beneficial to the consumer. Like Montoya said, get involved with your local government. Make sure OUR voice is heard. If we don't, we are basically asking for a broken internet.

If this is your $0.02, then each word in this is worth $0.00003. :slight_smile:
TL;DR: Running corporations is expensive, so big corporations have to find ways to make even more money if they want to make money. ISPs are worse cause they have an unbreakable monopoly. FCC is not helpful at all. Not end of the world, though. Solution: go do local government stuff, tell them 'net neutrality = good; FCC = bad'.

 

[ColdDog]

What I would like is to be able to see how you came to this conclusion so I can better understand your viewpoint.

I'm hardwired like this. So I need the better judgement of other folks to help me along, and other people need my opinion to help them along. That said, my opinion does not mean squat... even though I am "usually" right. I've been in the military, worked for the govt, worked for companies, owned my own business... I've been around the block a couple times. Military and Govt experience showed me the government is not very efficient and exists to feed itself - ever more and more. On the other hand, business and corporate experience has shown me that it is a dog eat dog world and that the corporation strives for efficiency but also it is motivated by its self interest. So, when people tell me the government is the solution... I cringe... and when people tell me that corporations have our best interests in mind... I also cringe. In today's polarized world... drastic fluctuations right to left and back... we have to make our own decisions and not follow these crazy leaders off the cliff (political or social). It is a balance, a word I think we have forgotten. In the end, I support innovation, even if it causes me a little pain.

Edit - I am not sure what else I can say... probably nothing... but over regulation is not the answer, the way I see it, and many others. I may the minority who is actually defending the decision in this discussion but I hate the lemming concept and we need to try to discuss these issues rationally.

Regulatory Philosophy

Chairman Pai’s regulatory philosophy is informed by a few simple principles. Rules that reflect these principles will result in more innovation, more investment, better products and services, lower prices, more job creation, and faster economic growth.

• Consumers benefit most from competition, not preemptive regulation. Free markets have delivered more value to American consumers than highly regulated ones.
• No regulatory system should indulge arbitrage; regulators should be skeptical of pleas to regulate rivals, dispense favors, or otherwise afford special treatment.
• Particularly given how rapidly the communications sector is changing, the FCC should do everything it can to ensure that its rules reflect the realities of the current marketplace and basic principles of economics.
• As a creature of Congress, the FCC must respect the law as set forth by the legislature.
• The FCC is at its best when it proceeds on the basis of consensus; good communications policy knows no partisan affiliation.

I like this article -
https://news.engin.umich.edu/2017/11/net-neutrality-repeal-michigan-engineers-weigh-in/

This is what I have been attempting to argue. (from the link above)

Recently Van Houweling added, “The internet has been an incredible engine for innovation because it has welcomed new applications and services,” he said. “The fact that a new idea is immediately available worldwide through the internet has provided an enormous incentive. Net neutrality has anchored this entrepreneurial expansion, and the United States has been the primary beneficiary. Allowing established large companies to favor their services over others and resist innovation will not only harm the internet and deprive its users, but it will also handicap U.S. leadership in internet innovation.”

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I'm hardwired like this. So I need the better judgement of other folks to help me along, and other people need my opinion to help them along. That said, my opinion does not mean squat... even though I am "usually" right. I've been in the military, worked for the govt, worked for companies, owned my own business... I've been around the block a couple times. Military and Govt experience showed me the government is not very efficient and exists to feed itself - ever more and more. On the other hand, business and corporate experience has shown me that it is a dog eat dog world and that the corporation strives for efficiency but also it is motivated by its self interest. So, when people tell me the government is the solution... I cringe... and when people tell me that corporations have our best interests in mind... I also cringe. In today's polarized world... drastic fluctuations right to left and back... we have to make our own decisions and not follow these crazy leaders off the cliff (political or social). It is a balance, a word I think we have forgotten. In the end, I support innovation, even if it causes me a little pain.

Edit - I am not sure what else I can say... probably nothing... but over regulation is not the answer, the way I see it, and many others. I may the minority who is actually defending the decision in this discussion but I hate the lemming concept and we need to try to discuss these issues rationally.

Regulatory Philosophy

Chairman Pai’s regulatory philosophy is informed by a few simple principles. Rules that reflect these principles will result in more innovation, more investment, better products and services, lower prices, more job creation, and faster economic growth.

• Consumers benefit most from competition, not preemptive regulation. Free markets have delivered more value to American consumers than highly regulated ones.
• No regulatory system should indulge arbitrage; regulators should be skeptical of pleas to regulate rivals, dispense favors, or otherwise afford special treatment.
• Particularly given how rapidly the communications sector is changing, the FCC should do everything it can to ensure that its rules reflect the realities of the current marketplace and basic principles of economics.
• As a creature of Congress, the FCC must respect the law as set forth by the legislature.
• The FCC is at its best when it proceeds on the basis of consensus; good communications policy knows no partisan affiliation.

I like this article -
https://news.engin.umich.edu/2017/11/net-neutrality-repeal-michigan-engineers-weigh-in/

This is what I have been attempting to argue. (from the link above)

Recently Van Houweling added, “The internet has been an incredible engine for innovation because it has welcomed new applications and services,” he said. “The fact that a new idea is immediately available worldwide through the internet has provided an enormous incentive. Net neutrality has anchored this entrepreneurial expansion, and the United States has been the primary beneficiary. Allowing established large companies to favor their services over others and resist innovation will not only harm the internet and deprive its users, but it will also handicap U.S. leadership in internet innovation.”

Thank you very much for helping me to understand your viewpoint, based on a lifetime of experience and first hand witness you are very kind to allow me to continue to question you like this.

Unfortunately your article on Engineers and repealing Neutrality has a 404 error, however considering your background in engineering and seeing the bureaucracies of both sides first hand, I thought you may find another article interesting: It's an open letter from the people who created the World Wide Web - they are not just engineers, they are the engineers responsible for the web we have now: Tim Burners Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, Vinton G Cerf the "Father of the internet" and many other noted engineers:

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/12/11/fcc-net-neutrality-vote-wozniak-tim-berners-lee.html

"It is important to understand that the FCC’s proposed Order is based on a flawed and factually inaccurate understanding of Internet technology. These flaws and inaccuracies were documented in detail in a 43-page-long joint comment signed by over 200 of the most prominent Internet pioneers and engineers and submitted to the FCC on July 17, 2017.

Despite this comment, the FCC did not correct its misunderstandings, but instead premised the proposed Order on the very technical flaws the comment explained. The technically-incorrect proposed Order dismantles 15 years of targeted oversight from both Republican and Democratic FCC chairs, who understood the threats that Internet access providers could pose to open markets on the Internet."

When the people who created the actual Internet say "you done goofed, ungoof it" you gotta think somethings gone a bit wrong, especially if the misapprehensions are then not corrected.

 

[Vavrik]

I like this article -
https://news.engin.umich.edu/2017/11/net-neutrality-repeal-michigan-engineers-weigh-in/

That article quotes two opinions, one for and one against the repeal of Net Neutrality. Good lord I hate that name. It is traffic shaping, packet filtering etc... it didn't need a new name. Anyway... you raised 5 points.

• Consumers benefit most from competition, not preemptive regulation. Free markets have delivered more value to American consumers than highly regulated ones.

• No regulatory system should indulge arbitrage; regulators should be skeptical of pleas to regulate rivals, dispense favors, or otherwise afford special treatment.

• Particularly given how rapidly the communications sector is changing, the FCC should do everything it can to ensure that its rules reflect the realities of the current marketplace and basic principles of economics.

• As a creature of Congress, the FCC must respect the law as set forth by the legislature.

• The FCC is at its best when it proceeds on the basis of consensus; good communications policy knows no partisan affiliation.

There are, in terms of the issues surrounding "net neutrality", the statements above are generally good, and I would agree with all of them except for a few issues.

Point 1. Free markets have delivered more value to American consumers than highly regulated ones, because competition has been allowed to flourish. In the ISP market while we are dependent on wire and fiber infrastructure, competition of that nature is not viable.
Other point: the net neutrality rules were not preemptive. They were implemented because the market had demonstrated a problem with fair and equitable access to the Internet. That is WHY it became an issue in 2010, and again in 2015.

Point 2. Just my interpretation but I say that by dropping the net neutrality laws, they were dispensing a favor to the industry - the result of hard lobbying on the part of the industry, and not a little fear and intimidation since Verizon did win a law suit in early 2014 against the 2010 attempt at Net neutrality. They were doing what the industry asked for, not what consumers asked for.

Point 3 Totally agree, but I think this the reality of the current marketplace. There is not enough competition in the market given the current level of technology. That is, copper wire and fiber, and the problem is the owners of the copper and fiber see themselves as the owners of it - and don't want to share that ownership.

Point 4: FCC is empowered by and supported by laws in Congress. However the FCC's charter in legislation is as an independent regulatory body, which is supposed to represent the best interests of ALL of the people of the United States, not the interests of an industry group. Period. I'll make this point again in a moment.

Point 5. Totally agree, which begs the question... WTF!?

By the way. Any argument from an "expert" that says Net Neutrality either stifled or did not stifle development of the technology has no clue what the technology is. Net Neutrality was not about the technology. It was about fair and equitable access to the technology, and the innovation that is stifled because entrepreneurs and small business have issues getting equitable access to the technology.

Here is the biggest point anyone can make. red emphasis mine. (I lifted it from Wikipedia...)

The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to ALL the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

And, I know everyone, including me, used the Netflix/Youtube paradigm to explain it, but that's not actually a big problem. I mean we pay what, 5 bucks or so to watch a B rated movie published in 1978 or 1992 on Pay Per view already. We don't complain much about that, but it was just a convenient way to explain the issue.

The real problem stems from the way Entrepreneurs were being treated before Net Neutrality (From 1998-ish to 2011, and 2014-2015 in the US - and again likely now.

 

[hardroc77]

here is no free market solution in my neighborhood because Google Fiber is being blocked by the existing ISPs. I live in the Chicago area. A small market as you can guess. Comcast and ATT own this town. And the politicians as well.

Want to read how Google Fiber is being blocked? Its a good read.

Yes. It is an "interesting" read.

He is giving the 90% of the population who are against him the middle finger and laughing at them.

Yup. A former (and still major stock holder) Associate general counsel for Verizon. He's laughing all the way to the bank. So much for "draining the swamp".

“It is time for the Internet, once again, to be driven by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers rather than lawyers, accountants and bureaucrats,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said in remarks before the vote.

Yeah and I got a bridge to sell you too. What he really means is that it's time for the board members, marketing departments and accountants to tell what you get and how much you pay for it.

 

[hardroc77]

Ajit Pai literally just put the US internet under the complete and total control of ISP executives whose only interest is maximizing their own profits. Nobody else has any say in it BUT bureaucrats anymore which is the sad irony.

That's it in a nutshell. Well said, my intelligent friend. And now I finish my daily beer and go to bed.

 

[Crymsan]

Hmm like all industries the goal is to take as much from the consumer as is possible so how will they spin it so you have to pay more and keep paying more and more and more.

 

[ColdDog]

There are, in terms of the issues surrounding "net neutrality", the statements above are generally good, and I would agree with all of them except for a few issues.

I challenge everyone here - instead of saying how you hate it, also let us know some positives. For example, I can see why X is important, but here is why I disagree, with point B. AKA - Socratic Method.

Thanks Vavik

I would have liked to see something - for example: more along the lines of 50% of providers/consumers are considered NN. The other 50% would not fall under it. But you know, it's either all in or all out when it comes to the government (above was probably too much work). It is not a black and white world.

 

[Sraika]

I challenge everyone here - instead of saying how you hate it, also let us know some positives. For example, I can see why X is important, but here is why I disagree, with point B. AKA - Socratic Method.

Um...
...
...
...no, that's not positive either...
...hmmmm...
...
...yeah, no, I got nothing.

 

[Vavrik]

I challenge everyone here - instead of saying how you hate it, also let us know some positives. For example, I can see why X is important, but here is why I disagree, with point B. AKA - Socratic Method.

It requires thinking. That is also a good thing!

So just to reiterate a point. Net Neutrality is about censorship of the internet at a very basic level, and censorship is about freedom. When we talk about "Free and equitable access" to the Internet, we're not talking about "Free" as in "FREE BEER!" it's free as in free speech. Nobody is saying that it doesn't cost a ton of money to run the internet.

There is a very good summary of the issue that I'm most concerned with on Wikipedia, and it lists internet freedom (specifically censorship and surveillance) on a global-geopolitical level. Yeah i know it's Wikipedia. I don't always trust it either, but the sources are valid. Take a good look at that map, understand that it was published the year BEFORE net neutrality finally became a thing (2014).

Here's the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country

 

[Sraika]

It requires thinking. That is also a good thing!

So just to reiterate a point. Net Neutrality is about censorship of the internet at a very basic level, and censorship is about freedom. When we talk about "Free and equitable access" to the Internet, we're not talking about "Free" as in "FREE BEER!" it's free as in free speech. Nobody is saying that it doesn't cost a ton of money to run the internet.

There is a very good summary of the issue that I'm most concerned with on Wikipedia, and it lists internet freedom (specifically censorship and surveillance) on a global-geopolitical level. Yeah i know it's Wikipedia. I don't always trust it either, but the sources are valid. Take a good look at that map, understand that it was published the year BEFORE net neutrality finally became a thing (2014).

Here's the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_by_country

That's a pretty good article, mate. Also, kinda scary. I disagree with it on some points, but overall it gives a pretty good picture. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that internet surveillance (while not really related to Net Neutrality) is effectively a global issue, and isn't affected much to borders.

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

I challenge everyone here - instead of saying how you hate it, also let us know some positives. For example, I can see why X is important, but here is why I disagree, with point B. AKA - Socratic Method.

All I've done is ask the same question over and over again. :slight_smile:

Which reminds me, what is Net Neutrality actually going to do?

As for Socratic Method, I am a big fan of his work in Phaedrus (as recorded by Plato). Not the bit about love, the bit about writing and knowledge. Really strikes a tone going into the Digital Era.

 

[ColdDog]

What is Net Neutrality actually going to do?

What was the question again? :) I thought the question was why did we remove Net Neutrality?

 

[Vavrik]

What is Net Neutrality actually going to do?

What it did do was prevent Internet Service Providers from censoring the Internet without effective controls on their actions.

In a nutshell: You need to decide whether or not you want your ISP able to censor (filter, block, throttle) your access to internet services, and demand extra payment for the services they've affected, simply because you want to access those services - and irrespective of your internet usage cap - and not have to justify that action to anyone.

Do you like that idea, or not?

 

[ColdDog]

I was going to stop but I'll try one more time... since its the holidays and its quiet.

What it did do was prevent Internet Service Providers from censoring the Internet without effective controls on their actions.

People A – NN prevents innovation and cripples productivity by removing efficiency by underutilizing bandwidth that could otherwise be consumed via traffic shaping.

People B – NN is needed to keep the internet equal because large organizations will take all our bandwidth and extort additional fees from us via traffic shaping.

People C – What is NN?

 

[NaffNaffBobFace]

Woah whoa whoa wait this is new:

People A – NN prevents innovation and cripples productivity by removing efficiency by underutilizing bandwidth that could otherwise be consumed via traffic shaping.

The bandwidth was/is being underutilised?

"Otherwise be consumed by traffic shaping" So without traffic shaping there are empty parts of bandwidth not being used?

Is this why it's slowing down, because it's not actually being used? Because as far as I thought I was aware that was not what Neutrality was?

 

[ColdDog]

The bandwidth was/is being underutilised?

Say with NN it is a 50% split between Corporations and the Consumers. But say corporations are using 48% of their allotted 50% leaving 2% unused (over simplified but the basic idea). Consumers as a whole are using 25% of the 50% leaving 25% unused.

With out NN, providers can dynamically scale the volume to meet needs. And yes, they could charge huge companies like Google or AWS a premium, just like they could charge me a premium for my usage. Now, I pay for Netflix - maybe they charge netflix a premium and Netflix passes that expense to me. Maybe not.

Like I said, NN was tidy. It wasn't dynamic like what we see now or will see... but you and I had that (false) comfort of thinking I am safe from the boogieman. Just like the pension system that nearly brought down Greece... You're safe until you run out of other peoples money - which is a whole different debate in itself.

This goes back to my infrastructure arguments with the backbone, L2 and L3s... So, now maybe a company like IBM, Google, Amazon could use that additional bandwidth. Maybe, the server backups, are a lower priority than Netflix. Maybe, there is an election and some news sites are over utilized during a specific time and date... the list goes on.

 

[Sraika]

I was going to stop but I'll try one more time... since its the holidays and its quiet.



People A – NN prevents innovation and cripples productivity by removing efficiency by underutilizing bandwidth that could otherwise be consumed via traffic shaping.

People B – NN is needed to keep the internet equal because large organizations will take all our bandwidth and extort additional fees from us via traffic shaping.

People C – What is NN?

View attachment 8546

Say with NN it is a 50% split between Corporations and the Consumers. But say corporations are using 48% of their allotted 50% leaving 2% unused (over simplified but the basic idea). Consumers as a whole are using 25% of the 50% leaving 25% unused.

With out NN, providers can dynamically scale the volume to meet needs. And yes, they could charge huge companies like Google or AWS a premium, just like they could charge me a premium for my usage. Now, I pay for Netflix - maybe they charge netflix a premium and Netflix passes that expense to me. Maybe not.

Like I said, NN was tidy. It wasn't dynamic like what we see now or will see... but you and I had that (false) comfort of thinking I am safe from the boogieman. Just like the pension system that nearly brought down Greece... You're safe until you run out of other peoples money - which is a whole different debate in itself.

This goes back to my infrastructure arguments with the backbone, L2 and L3s... So, now maybe a company like IBM, Google, Amazon could use that additional bandwidth. Maybe, the server backups, are a lower priority than Netflix. Maybe, there is an election and some news sites are over utilized during a specific time and date... the list goes on.

Wait wait wait, that's not what net neutrality is though.
Where'd you get this graph, anyways? I'd be interested in reading the accompanying comment/article.
Net neutrality is about ISPs not charging specific companies more/less money so that they can affect what content you see. Bandwidth doesn't really play into it, except as a (nominal) reason for ISPs to actual charge money. The bandwidth thing is a very small part of a larger whole.