Net Neutrality

[August]

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

Internet access is basically an essential service. Alex Jones is a nutcase.

Essential services should be regulated. Nutcases not so much - unless they’re dangerous to life or limb.

The shit thing is the lack of middle ground, any extremist is bad.

 

[Tealwraith]

I had considered posting that video myself, but it might be considered insulting to Glorious Leader Montoya, which is a form of heresy. In the case of Alex Jones, no regulation is needed, simply prosecute the people who cut him out for violation of his civil rights. After you give a few Google and Facebook bigwigs the Martha Stewart treatment, the rest will think very carefully before shutting down people for being against chemicals that make the frogs gay or being believers in a flat earth. We said a bakery has to make a cake for a gay couple, but FB can shut down your account because you say there are people in the "deep state" that want to rule the country from behind closed doors? LOL.

Finally, everyone was atwitter because the end of Net Neutrality meant ISP charges were going to skyrocket for small businesses. I ask again, how much have you small businesses seen your rates jump since the deregulation? I want hard facts, not speculation.

 

[marctek]

That video is clearly on the payroll of the ISPs. His logic is completely flawed.

The one thing he says that makes sense is "if you use more, you pay more." But he's trying to charge THE WRONG PEOPLE.

The CONSUMERS are the ones who should pay based on what they use, not the companies they are buying from.

If I want to watch 100 TB of video every month, it shouldn't matter if I'm downloading from Google or from NewStartupCo. I AM THE ONE using the bandwidth, not Google and not NewStartupCo.

With Net Neutrality dead, the ISPs CONTROL the fate of NewStartupCo because IT CAN NEVER COMPETE for your business. Only Google will ever be able to pay for the "fast lane."

Flawed logic is flawed. Don't believe this ISP shill doing his best to make his lobbying look like it's legitimate.

This is correct. Companies like Netflix are paying for their connection to the internet. The bigger the connection the more they pay to their carrier.
Then another carrier can say hey Netflix if you want your service to be good on our network you need to pay us as well. Even though the consumer is the one using that carrier.

The ones who are really getting screwed is the consumer because now Netflix will charge them more for the bandwidth they have already paid their carrier for.

This is going to be harmful to startups and small mom and pop operations.

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

This is so true. I hate regulation but there is a time and place for it. I think the carriers do need to be regulated when they start double charging and hurting their consumers. Many of those consumers do not have a choice in carrier which is what warrants regulation.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about regulating facebook, twitter and such. They are not really required for my daily life and if they serve me up crap I can walk away without it really affecting me. I can still get news from hundreds if not thousands of different sources.

 

[Xist]

I had considered posting that video myself, but it might be considered insulting to Glorious Leader Montoya, which is a form of heresy. In the case of Alex Jones, no regulation is needed, simply prosecute the people who cut him out for violation of his civil rights. After you give a few Google and Facebook bigwigs the Martha Stewart treatment, the rest will think very carefully before shutting down people for being against chemicals that make the frogs gay or being believers in a flat earth. We said a bakery has to make a cake for a gay couple, but FB can shut down your account because you say there are people in the "deep state" that want to rule the country from behind closed doors? LOL.

Finally, everyone was atwitter because the end of Net Neutrality meant ISP charges were going to skyrocket for small businesses. I ask again, how much have you small businesses seen your rates jump since the deregulation? I want hard facts, not speculation.

As I have already reported, prior to net neutrality my businesses were being targeted by ISPs and we were being extorted or faced being throttled. Our only option was to pay the extortion money to the ISP and CHARGE THE CUSTOMER MORE. (Why didn't the ISP just charge the customer more, instead of forcing everyone else to do it? Because they are lying assholes who want you to believe it's not their fault your costs are higher.)

Also it is too early for people to see real change right now because the states are fighting net neutrality in spite of Ajit Pai and the other cronies in our federal government.

If the ISPs go full "screw you pay me" then they will find it a lot harder to combat net neutrality since they promise it's really YOU they're looking out for (and if you believe that, contact me about a really special deal that's just for people who can't use their own minds).

No, the ISPs won't change anything until they're sure that net neutrality is really dead and even the states can't do anything to them. Until then it's far too risky for them. Your "show me" mentality, though I respect it, will fail you as evidence in this case.

 

[Knightwolf]

I thought that the big companies like Google were pushing to keep Net Neutrality. I wonder why that is? Somehow I get the funny feeling they are not looking out for the consumers. That is just my take on the subject. I also thought more regulations help create a monopoly or secures a companies monopoly over the little guys. I for keeping the government out of it. They don't have a good track record.

 

[Montoya]

In the case of Alex Jones, no regulation is needed, simply prosecute the people who cut him out for violation of his civil rights.

His civil rights are not being infringed because Youtube is not a federally owned company or public utility. Much like the baker who refused service to the gay couple. The Supreme court ruled in his favor, he did not have to make a gay wedding cake.

Make Youtube, twitter and facebook and common carrier under title II... and then you can get them for violating civil rights.

Hooray for govt regulation! :D

 

[Montoya]

I thought that the big companies like Google were pushing to keep Net Neutrality. I wonder why that is? Somehow I get the funny feeling they are not looking out for the consumers. That is just my take on the subject.

You are lumping all big companies under the same umbrella, which is incorrect.

The internet service providers like ATT, Verizon, Sprint etc, they hate Net Neutrality. Under NN they can not charge you extra for watching Netflix, they are forced to allow all data to flow freely and equally over their networks.

Netflix, Amazon, Google and others want NN because it ensures their content does not get charged extra by the cable providers.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/

I also thought more regulations help create a monopoly or secures a companies monopoly over the little guys. I for keeping the government out of it. They don't have a good track record.

This is an example of the power of misinformation.

Verizon and Ajit Pai made up all this nonsense that deregulation will allow the little guy to compete and that is healthy for capitalism. That was a lie.

A few years back all of us here in Raleigh got mail from Google fiber that they were coming to our neighbor hoods, I even got the t-shirt!

Where is Google fiber now?

They were blocked at every step of the way by AT&T and the incumbent cable providers.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/frontier-teams-with-att-to-block-google-fiber-access-to-utility-poles/

It got to the point where it was simply too expensive for Google to fight with AT&T and the other existing ISP's, so they simply stopped.

There is no competition in my neighborhood, its a duopoly between AT&T and Spectrum. Neither bothers to give special deals or undercut the other, they are perfectly happy providing the same service for the same price.

Regulations did not create the monopoly, the big guys were already entrenched and rigged the system so they could not be challenged. All regulations did was prevent them from making even more profits by charging Netflix extra for using their pipes.

As for your comment about the govt having a bad track record, that makes no sense. We had NN and it was fine, the regulations making internet a common carrier like water and electricity work, and they work great! No consumer was crying about the fact that they could watch Netflix and Youtube and not get throttled by their ISP. We all loved the fact that all data was treated equally over our internet connection, that is a great track record!

Im not sure why you see that as a bad track record.

Here is a bad track record, Time Warner Cable being sued because they throttle League of Legends, as they now can because there is no net neutrality:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291284/New_York_sues_Time_Warner_over_throttled_League_of_Legends_speeds.php

In summary:

Net Neutrality FORCES ISP's to treat all data equally! It is a great thing for consumers, but a terrible thing for the ISP's.

 

[Xist]

I thought that the big companies like Google were pushing to keep Net Neutrality. I wonder why that is? Somehow I get the funny feeling they are not looking out for the consumers. That is just my take on the subject. I also thought more regulations help create a monopoly or secures a companies monopoly over the little guys. I for keeping the government out of it. They don't have a good track record.

Your logic is insanely flawed.

There are MASSIVE companies on BOTH sides of the issue. The ISPs in the states are among the largest companies in the world and they hate net neutrality because it takes control AWAY from them and puts it in the hands of you the consumer.

The huge companies like Google love net neutrality because it allows new companies to spring up with fresh new ideas that consumers love. (Google et al then BUY those companies to add to their empires, but that is a monopolistic enforcement problem, NOT a net neutrality problem).

Anyway, big companies love it, big companies hate it. Thus you can't have a valid opinion just on the basis of "big companies are bad, so what they hate is good for me." Wherever you got that from is simply wrong.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

Delicious irony when the same people celebrating removal of Net Neutrality, seeing it as a victory for the free market, are the same ones calling for govt regulation on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube when Alex Jones gets banned.

Now you want regulation?

Pick a side!

Yes well you understand, this is why we should all avoid generalizations. Regulation is not bad or good. It is bad or good given any specific issue. You may be correct to say in general we have to much, or too little, but what matters are the specific details. This is always so. Generalization is the essence of sloppy thinking. It is characterized my all manner of logical fallacy. The devil is in the details, and without them we can make no informed decisions.

So really the last thing you want to do with regulation and a specific issue, is pick a side based upon some general attitude. That is never the way to think about any given situation. It is in fact, how we avoid thinking.

 

[at-2500]

You are lumping all big companies under the same umbrella, which is incorrect.

The internet service providers like ATT, Verizon, Sprint etc, they hate Net Neutrality. Under NN they can not charge you extra for watching Netflix, they are forced to allow all data to flow freely and equally over their networks.

Netflix, Amazon, Google and others want NN because it ensures their content does not get charged extra by the cable providers.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/




This is an example of the power of misinformation.

Verizon and Ajit Pai made up all this nonsense that deregulation will allow the little guy to compete and that is healthy for capitalism. That was a lie.

A few years back all of us here in Raleigh got mail from Google fiber that they were coming to our neighbor hoods, I even got the t-shirt!

Where is Google fiber now?

They were blocked at every step of the way by AT&T and the incumbent cable providers.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/frontier-teams-with-att-to-block-google-fiber-access-to-utility-poles/

It got to the point where it was simply too expensive for Google to fight with AT&T and the other existing ISP's, so they simply stopped.

There is no competition in my neighborhood, its a duopoly between AT&T and Spectrum. Neither bothers to give special deals or undercut the other, they are perfectly happy providing the same service for the same price.

Regulations did not create the monopoly, the big guys were already entrenched and rigged the system so they could not be challenged. All regulations did was prevent them from making even more profits by charging Netflix extra for using their pipes.

As for your comment about the govt having a bad track record, that makes no sense. We had NN and it was fine, the regulations making internet a common carrier like water and electricity work, and they work great! No consumer was crying about the fact that they could watch Netflix and Youtube and not get throttled by their ISP. We all loved the fact that all data was treated equally over our internet connection, that is a great track record!

Im not sure why you see that as a bad track record.

Here is a bad track record, Time Warner Cable being sued because they throttle League of Legends, as they now can because there is no net neutrality:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291284/New_York_sues_Time_Warner_over_throttled_League_of_Legends_speeds.php

In summary:

Net Neutrality FORCES ISP's to treat all data equally! It is a great thing for consumers, but a terrible thing for the ISP's.

To augment this by an example from Germany, the Deutsche Telekom is similar to AT&T. Being a successor to the former government-run telephone system, they own pretty much all telephone lines in Germany.

Being a company, they try to exploit this monopoly as much as possible.
Without net neutrality, this is easy:
1. Make all audio service crappy for your customers
2. Be happy about ppl being angry that whatsapp audio and third party VoIP is so shitty
3. Charge Whatsapp for prioritizing its traffic
4. Overcharge people that don't want to use Whatsapp for doing phone calls with their land lines

Or, for video:
1. Make all video service crappy for your customers
2. Tell Google that the only way to make customers happy is to put servers into Deutsche Telekom run data centers
3. Charge Google for having the servers in their data center
4. Now, if you are google, you can pay for this (or just tell them to fuck off and rest assured that your customers don't have alternatives), but the innovative startup (for example Netflix when they were small) is simply not usable for the customers. Next step: Charge customers for using the Deutsche Telekom video portal because it is the only one that works.

Now, net neutrality is super important in preventing this.
Here is how the Deutsche Telekom makes sure that audio and video from third parties is unusable between 6pm and 10pm:
They are the only ISP that doesn't do any free peering at the open peering points.

What a minute, what is peering? So, a German ISP charges its customers money for accessing stuff in the interwebs. However, the customer wants to access testsquadron.com, a web page that is hosted in a Amazon-run datacenter at the US west coast. How do the oversized smilies get from there to Germany? Via fiber cables over land and under water that are operated by another company, Level 3. But first, it needs to get there. For that purpose, all over the world there are "internet exchange points" that are basically big rooms where an ISP or datacenter operator or long-haul fiber operator can run a wire, put in a switch and connect to all of the other peers. The biggest one in Germany is the DE-CIX, located near Frankfurt.

Now, the Telekom does not do that. The Telekom wants to see money for the privilege of anyone delivering data to their customers, be it from Video companies, network or data center operators.
Without net neutrality, they can get away with this because they can make sure only the services of those companies that they want to charge run crappy.
With net neutrality in place, not just the connection to specific web pages gets crappy for DT customers, but all pages and services, which forces them to upgrade their free peering capacity when their paying customer become unhappy with the connection.

 

[Knightwolf]

You are lumping all big companies under the same umbrella, which is incorrect.

The internet service providers like ATT, Verizon, Sprint etc, they hate Net Neutrality. Under NN they can not charge you extra for watching Netflix, they are forced to allow all data to flow freely and equally over their networks.

Netflix, Amazon, Google and others want NN because it ensures their content does not get charged extra by the cable providers.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/




This is an example of the power of misinformation.

Verizon and Ajit Pai made up all this nonsense that deregulation will allow the little guy to compete and that is healthy for capitalism. That was a lie.

A few years back all of us here in Raleigh got mail from Google fiber that they were coming to our neighbor hoods, I even got the t-shirt!

Where is Google fiber now?

They were blocked at every step of the way by AT&T and the incumbent cable providers.


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/07/frontier-teams-with-att-to-block-google-fiber-access-to-utility-poles/

It got to the point where it was simply too expensive for Google to fight with AT&T and the other existing ISP's, so they simply stopped.

There is no competition in my neighborhood, its a duopoly between AT&T and Spectrum. Neither bothers to give special deals or undercut the other, they are perfectly happy providing the same service for the same price.

Regulations did not create the monopoly, the big guys were already entrenched and rigged the system so they could not be challenged. All regulations did was prevent them from making even more profits by charging Netflix extra for using their pipes.

As for your comment about the govt having a bad track record, that makes no sense. We had NN and it was fine, the regulations making internet a common carrier like water and electricity work, and they work great! No consumer was crying about the fact that they could watch Netflix and Youtube and not get throttled by their ISP. We all loved the fact that all data was treated equally over our internet connection, that is a great track record!

Im not sure why you see that as a bad track record.

Here is a bad track record, Time Warner Cable being sued because they throttle League of Legends, as they now can because there is no net neutrality:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/291284/New_York_sues_Time_Warner_over_throttled_League_of_Legends_speeds.php

In summary:

Net Neutrality FORCES ISP's to treat all data equally! It is a great thing for consumers, but a terrible thing for the ISP's.

Nice rebuttal, Thank you.

 

[Bambooza]

As I have already reported, prior to net neutrality my businesses were being targeted by ISPs and we were being extorted or faced being throttled. Our only option was to pay the extortion money to the ISP and CHARGE THE CUSTOMER MORE. (Why didn't the ISP just charge the customer more, instead of forcing everyone else to do it? Because they are lying assholes who want you to believe it's not their fault your costs are higher.)

This is the same principle that happens to corporate taxes. Governments can provided more social project funding while no raising taxes on the individuals while still increasing their tax bases. So what if the end result is goods cost more they can simply blame corporations for the increase fee's. Comcast did the same thing to Netflix throttling their bandwidth to the end users unless Netflix agreed to pay for standard speed. Then we have the opposite with AT&T pushing their Direct TV product onto AT&T wireless customers by offering them free streaming that doesn't count towards their limited minutes while subscribers to Amazon's prime, Netflix or HBO Now do count towards your limited mobile minutes. tMobile has done the same with Netflix and Pandora and with Comcast purchasing up more of the studios is only a matter of time before they give priority to their own in house offerings over everything else.

 

[Shadow Reaper]

I am following most of the arguments for Net Neutrality, but isn't it also true the regulations were defective in that they did not provide the kinds of protection that make the most difference to the individual end user? For instance, it seems to me the claim at time index 1:23 is a valid complaint. If scaled pricing makes sense for utilities, why does it not make sense for net use? If Netflix is buying bandwidth to resell it for use in streaming vids, shouldn't they have to pay more for this than someone just playing a game? Isn't buying from someone who is buying from someone else intrinsically different than you and me buying our Isp service?

If for example it is true, that in 2014 Netflix and Google consumed more than 52% of the bandwidth of the ENTIRE INTERNET, should they not be paying much, much more for that use? Seems so to me.

Likewise, it seems obvious to me the second charge is objectively true. The companies that successfully lobbied for Net Neutrality with the argument that they don't want ISPs to censor them, are actually those who practice the greatest censoring. FB, Twitter, Google, YouTube, are all guilty as sin in this regard, yet no one is censoring nor regulating them. It seems to me a truely Neutral Net, requires something approaching a governmental censor for both ISPs and the big monopolistic users.

It appears to me that Net Neutrality had some good things going for it, but that it was flawed in its execution. Since we know this will come up for reappraisal within a year or two, shouldn't we have notions to share on what a V2.0 should look like?

 

[Radegast74]

If for example it is true, that in 2014 Netflix and Google consumed more than 52% of the bandwidth of the ENTIRE INTERNET, should they not be paying much, much more for that use? Seems so to me.

Dunno, sounds like they should be getting a volume discount to me!

 

[August]

That bandwidth is ultimately paid for by consumers. If ISP’s need to upgrade their links, the consumer pays. If content providers are charged more to provide content which people actually want, consumers are either going to be charged higher subscription prices or advertisers are going to increase theirs.

Ultimately consumers lose when the services we all want become more expensive to provide.

 

[Montoya]

If for example it is true, that in 2014 Netflix and Google consumed more than 52% of the bandwidth of the ENTIRE INTERNET, should they not be paying much, much more for that use? Seems so to me.

@August above got it.

The reason I upgraded from my old $15.99 phone line internet plan from the olden days to the more modern cable with 2Mbps basic plan and then to the 30Mbps I currenly have is because I am consuming more streaming content than ever!

I am paying Spectrum for that bigger pipe. What I put through it is none of their business.

If Netflix and Youtube are eating up over 52% of their bandwidth and that is too much, how about laying down more fiber?

Oh yeah, that would be ridiculous because it would cut into their profits.

The free market solution would be to allow competition to lay down competing networks.... but as Google fiber found out, that didn't work out too well. AT&T blocked Google Fiber at every opportunity.

 

[Xist]

If scaled pricing makes sense for utilities, why does it not make sense for net use?

Absolutely! We are in total agreement on this point.

If Netflix is buying bandwidth to resell it for use in streaming vids, shouldn't they have to pay more for this than someone just playing a game?

This is misleading. Netflix is paying for a connection to the Internet, where they pay 100% of what it costs to serve their traffic to the Internet. They are ALREADY paying for it.

If for example it is true, that in 2014 Netflix and Google consumed more than 52% of the bandwidth of the ENTIRE INTERNET, should they not be paying much, much more for that use?

It is NOT true that Netflix and Google consumed that traffic. CONSUMERS consumed it.

Consumers want video, and they're going to get it, if not from Netflix and Google, then from someone else. This is the CONSUMER using the product, not Netflix/Google using the Internet.

The assholes in the video are trying their best to mislead you, and it seems to have been effective.

Since they make the analogy to electricity in your house, let's think of net neutrality in those same terms.

You can use power for whatever you want. You pay for what you use. That is exactly how it should be. If you get brown outs or black outs, you rightly get pissed at your power company and rightly so.

What if the power company was able to say "You used your heating unit so much this year, damn your heating company they are using all of the power! The heating company must pay or you cannot have any heat!" Or if you live in a hot climate, what about "Your refrigerator consumes far too much energy, and either the company who makes your refrigerator has to pay us a lot, or we are going to randomly shut it off so all your food spoils, but it's not our fault, it's your refrigerator manufacturer because THEY are the ones using all the power!"

These are clearly completely insane. As are all of the ISP arguments that they should be able to charge Google and Netflix.

YOU THE CONSUMER are using the product. YOU CHOOSE what to download and what not to. Your ISP has no right to charge the companies that you use, or to block you from using sites you want to use.

The companies that successfully lobbied for Net Neutrality with the argument that they don't want ISPs to censor them, are actually those who practice the greatest censoring.

This is another subject entirely and it is purely subjective, so I won't debate this point with you. Whether or not you believe Google or Netflix censors things does not matter at all when it comes to the legitimacy of net neutrality.

Net Neutrality puts YOU THE CONSUMER in complete control over what you watch, when you watch it and for how long. Without it, you are giving that control to your ISP, who will block you from watching anything they don't want you to watch.

 

[Bambooza]

If Netflix and Youtube are eating up over 52% of their bandwidth and that is too much, how about laying down more fiber?

the other 47% is used up by porn hub alone.

If consumers are streaming more then ever and its downgrading their service performance then ISP's really should have two choices. Charge more so they can do the correct capital investments to improve their service or lower the plan's Mbps so that its not utilized as much. If you can't handle me using all 60 Mb's streaming what ever then don't provide the opportunity to do so. To blame were I go for the content for the problems your network suffers is disingenuous borderline a lie.

 

[Bambooza]

YOU THE CONSUMER are using the product. YOU CHOOSE what to download and what not to. Your ISP has no right to charge the companies that you use, or to block you from using sites you want to use.

Now if we could just get a simple law that states this instead of all the riders, exceptions and pork.

 

[Radegast74]

That bandwidth is ultimately paid for by consumers. If ISP’s need to upgrade their links, the consumer pays. If content providers are charged more to provide content which people actually want, consumers are either going to be charged higher subscription prices or advertisers are going to increase theirs.

On top of that, the ISP's are gaming the system at both ends: they charge the consumer higher amounts for higher speed tiers (throttling your data at certain times, to try to gouge you into buying a higher tier) and they charge the content providers higher prices to get higher speeds (and limit the data speeds/access to effectively extort higher prices).

Recent example: Verizon throttled California firefighters data while they were in the middle of fighting a fire, saying they had exceeded their unlimited data plan, and tried to get them to buy a higher priced plan. This wasn't just a one time incident, this happened repeatedly.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

This is something that ISP's can do when they have a monopoly. Technically, being a monopoly is not illegal...but engaging in "monopolistic practices" is illegal. Right now, the ISP's can tell the consumer and businesses, "Hey you've got some nice data there, it would be a shame if something happened to it. You should pay us some data speed protection fees..." and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it, because there isn't any real competition.