Net Neutrality in Limbo?

[PokéTrainer J]

EVERYONE MUST READ THIS!

Well it seems like the fiasco with the FCC, Verizon, and Google got heated up big time even though the FCC couldn't make an agreement on the issue of Net Neutrality which I don't see as a big issue to fix at all, as the old saying goes If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Now it seems like according to this web article that the World Wide Web is at risk of being destroyed. I think we're fine for the most part however I'm concerned about what's going on between Verizon and Google in terms of their proposed agenda's of trying to split the internet into "public" and "private" which I don't see the reason for whatsoever.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/is-the-web-dead-no-but-its-at-risk/19597815/

The internet over time has become a second medium of entertainment and information beyond television, infact our society is so dependant on internet technology it's not even funny. Businesses, Jobs, basically people's lifestyles are associated with the internet, take for example Skype, Facebook, and Twitter.

Though I am concerned that the internet could be at risk, I still think the fight isn't over for free democracy on the internet to ensure that the way we view the internet stays awesome the way it has been for years.

I urge everyone to take a stand and go to this website:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

The FCC is our last hope of saving the internet to keep it public the way it has been instead of being private. We must not let Google or Verizon win!

Our warnings are no longer speculation. Google, Verizon, ATT and Comcast are about to turn the Internet into cable TV --- where their favored websites and content will move fast, and everyone else will be left without a voice. These companies will kill the Web as an engine for free speech and equal opportunity. It is time for us all to stand up or get rolled.

You're probably asking yourself "What is net neutrality?"

Hopefully this link will explain everything:

http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144

Grim has zalz's analysis was, I believe there's still hope...

I have always said it and i still find it to be true. The internet that we have today is unique, it's mass media under control of the individual, it allows more freedom then anything ever created by mankind. It is the most powerfull tool that people have had to expose the truth, the real way things are. The only way for a country to truly fight the exposure of their secrets is by disconecting their entire population from the internet, something that is becoming more and more impossible without becoming a hermit state.

The internet is genius in it's current form, it has unlimited freedom and perfect equality. Nobody in the world has more rights on the internet then me, and no computer can do more with the internet then me, excluding from a hardware perspective. It's absolute freedom and absolute equality, these are 2 things that no goverment in the world will ever permit on the long run.

Companies will push the goverment towards shackeling the internet and the goverment will gladly jump on such a occasion to break what any goverment will see as "too much freedom". The internet we have today is unique and it will not survive the coming storm from companies and western goverments to break it. End of the day the ordinary people won't have the money that industries have and it won't have the political power that politicians have. The internet is going to be destroyed by a generation of out-dated citizens that don't even understand it. The internet is going to be ruined by a generation "series of tubes" politicians that will even be to stupid to understand what perfection they are destroying.

If the internet remains as it is then it might stand a chance as a new generation that understands the value of a free internet, but that is very unlikely as companies like google and industries like hollywood are allready making moves to forever destroy the current version of the internet. In a way it's almost to great a product for the people, and both polticians and industries agree that the people don't deserve something that great.

Here's an interesting video from Senator Al Franken regarding the issue of Net Neutrality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjYpz5TQSlE&feature=player_embedded#

And I 100% agree that the issue of Net Neutrality is the biggest issue
since the Freedom of Religion. Why is Illegal Immigration besides
Freedom of Religion getting all the attention and not just Net Neutrality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmT6gGpwmUU&feature=related

 

[cim]

I know since I'm included in "everyone" I "must read this" but I had a ton of trouble following anything you were saying. It kind of reads like an essay somebody would write in 7th grade chopped into a few pieces and rearranged...

Anyway, yeah net neutrality would be pretty nice I guess?

 

[FlareBlitz]

OP, I know you meant well, but your post has a very "raging libertarian" feel to it, which will turn some people off.

To those who came to this thread with little/no idea of what net neutrality is...it's simple. Net Neutrality is a policy that is currently being debated in the FCC and Congress. The policy would mean that the FCC forces ISPs to behave as a "dumb pipe"; that is, all the ISPs can sell you is the ability to access the internet, without controlling WHAT on the internet (within legal bounds) you can access.

Without Net Neutrality, companies will be free to block off parts of the internet unless you pay extra. For instance, you know how you need to pay extra to watch HBO on TV? Well, if Net Neutrality were not implemented, ISPs could force you to pay extra to access Youtube, Google, etc. ISPs could also take less dramatic steps, such as merely charging you more for bandwidth spent on Smogon versus bandwidth spent on Serebii.

ISPs have already rolled out trial versions of these plans in test markets. Time Warner was the first, and I believe they have several variants of this policy in various parts of Texas already.

In order for this to be a more informative, less biased post, I was going to include arguments here from people arguing against the implemention of net neutrality. But I'm not going to, for the same reason I don't address Creationist arguments in a thread about evolutionary biology. Anyone who argues against the implementation of net neutrality is either a) going to financially benefit if it's not there or b) irrationally paranoid of government intervention, and their arguments are not worth my time to write out.

 

[cantab]

I don't think neutrality will go away in practice, because internet users want and expect an open connection. If their service providers start imposing restrictions, people will change providers. And early termination fees in contracts should and hopefully would be found unenforceable if the ISP made such a big change to the service provided.

That said, my perspective is based on the UK market, which is highly competitive. There are dozens of ISPs I could get my broadband from. My understanding is in the US there's not that kind of competition.

Also, the ISPs will probably dress it up as something else. They'll advertise "super-fast Youtube", when in fact they're artificially slowing down other sites.

 

[PokéTrainer J]

ISPs have already rolled out trial versions of these plans in test markets. Time Warner was the first, and I believe they have several variants of this policy in various parts of Texas already.

So in other words you're saying that the state of Texas no longer has net neutrality to protect themselves from ISP's ruining their free access correct?

And If I were to surf the internet on a computer in Texas, I'd have to pay money just to view stuff on websites If my ISP is Time Warner?

Internet users want a free connection where they don't have to pay for anything to gain access to what they want. Net Neutrality is a good thing however when people and companies such as AT&T, Comcast, Google, and Verizon are trying to get rid of Net Neutrality, free speech, and communication on the web that's when we have a problem.

There's no doubt in my mind that Net Neutrality is one of the most important issues of our time since the debate of securing Freedom of Religion. We should at least have a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution enabling Net Neutrality to be public only and to stop ISP's from making it private as they see fit.

Why should people be charged or taxed for how much bandwidth they use on websites they go to? It's unjust and it's the part of the problem of the corporate media's potential takeover of the internet.

It's really up to the FCC or the Obama Administration to step up and secure Net Neutrality so that we won't have a whole bunch of ISP's (Internet Service Providers) ruining what makes the internet great in the first place.

 

[TheMartian]

Net Neutrality is a necessity and it shouldn't be fucked with

 

[FlareBlitz]

The state of Texas never had net neutrality. No one does; that's the entire point.

But yes, if your ISP is Time Warner in certain parts of the country, you will have to essentially pay more to visit certain sites.

If you feel as strongly about it as you seem to, I would recommend you write your Congressman or the FCC about it. They actually do pay attention to that shit.

 

[Ancien Régime]

In order for this to be a more informative, less biased post, I was going to include arguments here from people arguing against the implemention of net neutrality. But I'm not going to, for the same reason I don't address Creationist arguments in a thread about evolutionary biology. Anyone who argues against the implementation of net neutrality is either a) going to financially benefit if it's not there or b) irrationally paranoid of government intervention, and their arguments are not worth my time to write out.

just posting here to say i am for net neutrality regardless of what means are taken to protect it

Still, I think net neutrality can absolutely exist without government protection, but we'd need to end telecom monopoly power which allows one ISP to dominate entire markets.

And then, even when Comcast tried to stealthily throttle Bittorrent traffic, angry customers were able to get them to stop without anyone intervening.

I don't think Net Neutrality is in any real danger unless ACTA passes.

I wouldn't mind if ISPs can provide faster access to content by making specific content owners pay more - that's not neutral, but it doesn't fuck up the rest of the internet, as long as the people who don't pay more don't get their service throttled.

 

[Daron]

I'm not gonna lie; you made this sound like if it was urgent and new, news. However the problem of the internet has long been known. There have been talk about actually controlling it and monitoring it. And this having nothing to do with google/verizon or whatever. In fact, an asian form of youtube has been since blocked over here (US, California) and I am no longer able to access episodes of a show I caught there previously like Law And Order SVU. China also has a lot filtered over in their region. And it strays on that way everywhere else. I personally am more concerned over what control is too much and how much we will lose in this should government officials take that they want to restrict more accesses.

 

[Deck Knight]

Yeah, if I have to rely on the FCC to save me, I'm screwed. From all I've been reading, this whole thing could be solved by C+P'ing Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to any legislation involing internet access. All the bloviating about "stopping corporations" can then cease.

I have a question:

If "companies" can (somehow) control my internet access to certain sites, why would I give that power to government instead? I can change my ISP, I can't change my government (The bureaucracies that would run something like Net Nuetrality are effectively immune to partisan elections once in place, short of getting someone like Ron Paul into office to abolish them in a single stroke).

Though perhaps I like it least because it sounds entirely Orwellian (the clownish Al Franken supporting it doesn't help it either.) Point blank, there shouldn't ever be an agency in charge of "Net Neutrality." This sounds like all it needs is a "one-and-done" clause put in legislation. At which point the government leaves it alone, permanently and forever.

Incidentally I'm always wary whenever someone says "corporations" are going to take over and so we must rush into the arms of a paternalistic government. Corporations have no power over me, but government does. I have nothing to fear from Verizon, Comcast, and Google, but much to fear when Uncle Sam sees fit to fiddle wth my access. Why should I ever believe that if Verizon and Google are capable of doing it that the government is too stupid to do the same exact thing, except under the guise of "protecting me from corporate interests." I'm not buying that load. People who complain about corporations over the internet really, really need to close the top of their laptop and look at the logo again, then glance upward and realize that Starbucks isn't a commune.

 

[Firestorm]

Deck Knight, the problem with Communications corporations is that they are always oligopolies. Due to the money it takes to set up the infrastructure required for internet, wireless, and phone access, there are only a few companies who can provide us with the service. Most of the time, this was done with government aid.

We already see the effects of this with outrageous fees for both internet and wireless usage. Instead of the competition driving down prices, I've seen fees and prices added then the other two or three companies following suit.

This means that you can't really change your ISP because the other few ISPs will pose the same problem.

Of course, the FCC (and CRTC in Canada) are filled with a bunch of old geezers who have no idea what the fuck they're doing so we're screwed regardless.

 

[Deck Knight]

Replacing oligopolies with a monopoly doesn't help, though. At least in theory you can pit members of the oligopoly against each other by getting one of them to try and scalp their competitors. With a monopoly (esp. one with the inability to be sued and the power to levy taxes), you have no recourse.

Of course there's always the "trustbuster" option where you split the companies up into different segments and ban parent company shenanigans, so that barriers to entry only cover a component of access rather than all elements taken together. Even then though, there should never be a government-run competitor at any point. I don't particularly like "government as trustbuster" in principle, but if that is the only option left to prevent a corporate monopoly then it should be done.

 

[FlareBlitz]

Yeah, if I have to rely on the FCC to save me, I'm screwed. From all I've been reading, this whole thing could be solved by C+P'ing Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to any legislation involing internet access. All the bloviating about "stopping corporations" can then cease.

Are you referring to the common carrier clause?
If so...that's almost exactly what current net neutrality proposals aim to do. The "dumb pipe" description would essentially turn ISPs into common carriers.

If "companies" can (somehow) control my internet access to certain sites, why would I give that power to government instead?

The government is not aiming to replace the service ISPs provide, it's aiming to prevent the undesirable execution of that service. i.e. The FCC will not be "in charge" of the internet, they will merely be given the authority to prevent ISPs from being in charge of the internet.

I realize you're just following the standard "why should we stop the private sector from doing bad things when the government will maybe possibly do them too I think" line of argument, but it is even less relevant and valid in this case than it usually is.

I can change my ISP, I can't change my government (The bureaucracies that would run something like Net Nuetrality are effectively immune to partisan elections once in place, short of getting someone like Ron Paul into office to abolish them in a single stroke).

Lol, Ron Paul.

Uh, sorry. Yeah it's a lot easier to change ISPs, but that means jack-all when all the ISPs have the same policy. Quick question, do you know any cable providers that offer true a la carte channel service? Hey, me neither!

Though perhaps I like it least because it sounds entirely Orwellian (the clownish Al Franken supporting it doesn't help it either.) Point blank, there shouldn't ever be an agency in charge of "Net Neutrality." This sounds like all it needs is a "one-and-done" clause put in legislation. At which point the government leaves it alone, permanently and forever.

What the hell? How does it sound Orwellian? Do you even know what Orwellian means? Having a government organization prevent ISPs from controlling your internet access is about as...not Orwellian as you can get. Unless that was an ironic comment pointing to Orwell's probable support of this measure (since he was a democratic socialist)...but given your other posts so far I feel more comfortable believing that it was just a superficial and invalid comparison made in an attempt to fearmonger.

Incidentally I'm always wary whenever someone says "corporations" are going to take over and so we must rush into the arms of a paternalistic government. Corporations have no power over me, but government does. I have nothing to fear from Verizon, Comcast, and Google, but much to fear when Uncle Sam sees fit to fiddle wth my access. Why should I ever believe that if Verizon and Google are capable of doing it that the government is too stupid to do the same exact thing, except under the guise of "protecting me from corporate interests." I'm not buying that load. People who complain about corporations over the internet really, really need to close the top of their laptop and look at the logo again, then glance upward and realize that Starbucks isn't a commune.

I wasn't even going to address this part since it's basically the typical right wing passive-aggressive whining levied at outdated liberal strawmen, and the...one sentence worth of substance has already been covered twice in my post.

I will, however, use this opportunity to make a general point. In all cases, the government only gains power when people say "there is something wrong here". Do you know why there are anti-trust laws? Because corporations formed trusts. Do you know why there are lemon laws? Because the information asymmetry resulting in the used car market resulted in quite a few buyers getting ripped off. Do you know why there's legislation regulating the banking industry? Because that industry proved itself untrustworthy (of course bush deregulated them again which is why AIG and company were able to use subprime mortgages as collateral for their assets but that's another discussion entirely). And so on and on.

Before complaining about how much influence the government has, think about how much influence corporations could have if the government didn't...or worse, how many wouldn't exist at all in the first place due to market failures or the percolation of power in monopolies and oligopolies.

 

[Deck Knight]

Would that I had the power to "monger fear." Much as I'd like to believe I strike fear into the hearts of whoever, I don't think I do. If I'm given such a power over someone I truly cannot help it.

And yes, "Net Neutrality" is a phrase perfectly suitable for Orwellian doublespeak, as I shall illustrate below:

MINISTRY OF NET NEUTRALITY
formerly known as the FCC
"All internet is neutral, but some internet is more neutral than others."​

Before complaining about how much influence the government has, think about how much influence corporations could have if the government didn't...or worse, how many wouldn't exist at all in the first place due to market failures or the percolation of power in monopolies and oligopolies.

Yeah, market failure. That doesn't happen anymore in a world where government merely has to claim a company is "too big to fail" and then proceed to use taxpayer dollars to bail that company out. Market failure for bad ideas or poor strategies is supposed to happen. Right now all government power seems to be aimed towards percolating public monopolies by bailing out private companies and making them beholden to various Czardoms Obama has created, many without Senate oversight or confirmation of their leaders.

Government should have minimal to no influence in anything. It influences too much already. Complaining about government influence is a duty of an informed citizenry. Corporations at the end of the day can be starved out by switching to competitors. They cannot hold a gun to your head in the form of taxation and force you to purchase their service at ever higher prices. I have a difficult time believing Verizon and Google, who have made their fortunes based on open access internet, suddenly have a compelling interest to change that model. If they really do this and people find they can't access their favorite sites because Verizon/Google have locked them away, they are going to change ISP's overnight.

In the meantime, government has every reason to do exactly what is theorized that Verizon and Google are planning because an open internet is extremely dangerous to big government power concentration. Moreover, government is never going to have reason to implement any improvements in service because anything it provides is essentially paid for with other people's money. You might get an a la carte channel service from a private provider eventually. You will never get it from a government entity. Motive is very important, and I have zero reason to believe Al Franken or the current adminstration are looking out for me instead of themselves. These are, after all, the same people who routinely talk about the Fairness Doctrine or its various permutations to silence their critics in talk radio or the blogosphere.

Point blank, there is no need for websites with such grandiose titles as "savetheinternet.com" Anything that paints its proponents as superheroes should send up warning flares in any thinking human being. The matter is so exceedingly simple that it doesn't need this kind of attention. Franken (or any of his predecessors or contemporaries) could have fixed this with a single amendment ages ago. Though that may have required them to put it in a bill that doesn't have 2000 pages of garbage appended to it.

I say let Verizon and Google do whatever they're planning. They'll learn the hard way when Comcast and Microsoft team up to offer the same service without the restrictions. If you think those companies are into collusion, you haven't been paying attention. Everyone in the tech field is a cutthroat. If Bill Gates knew he could smack those upstart punks at Google around and they were going to do all his legwork for him, he'd jump onto their market share in an instant. Same with the Verizon/Comcast rivalry. The government that governs least governs best. Expecting the current administration not to overreach on "ensuring net neutrality" is like expecting Swiper not to swipe. Swiper will always swipe, as it is in his nature.

So hey, if the government can get it right on this one when the temptation for abuse is so great, I'm totally cool with it. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen that way.

 

[Firestorm]

If you don't think these companies aren't into collusion, you haven't been paying attention. I can't speak for the US, but I've seen our communications companies here and they have been matching each other in fee increases - not decreases. The only way we started seeing lower prices was due to government intervention.

Why would they undercut each other when these are essential services to most Americans and they can keep raising the price instead? Bandwidth caps didn't always exist.

Google and Verizon's plan was all positive for traditional landline internet iirc, it was wireless internet that was the issue.

 

[Veedrock]

Bandwidth caps didn't always exist.

Nor did super excessive bandwidth use. The things some people do with their internet is unbelievable. Yeah it sucks that everybody has to pay for what less than 10% of users do but its enough to push companies to reform. When the abusers move to another company, they end up forcing their hand as well. I work for an ISP so I have a relative idea of the inner workings of the companies and the response to bandwidth abuse is justified in my opinion.

And yeah, the Google/Verizon ordeal was in regards to wireless activity, the real question in that case was if net neutrality should extend to wireless providers.

 

[Firestorm]

Abuse? You do realize we live in 2010? Digital content delivery is something I expect. I've seen plans with bandwidth caps as low as 2GB per month. My cell phone's data plan gives me 6GB a month. I've been on my computer for about an hour and a half now today. I've used 300 MB and not downloaded a single file in the traditional sense. All of it is web page views + a bit of YouTube.

Thankfully my ISP doesn't track bandwidth. If it did, I'd probably be going over each month. That's not even counting events like last holiday where I took full advantage of Steam's holiday sales.

ISPs should be upgrading their infrastructure to support new uses of the internet. Not punishing us for using new services.

Let's say in one month I want to binge on a TV show that's 3 seasons long, buy three PC games, and browse normally at an average of 5 hours a day. Let's also say I have a Zune Pass and download 100 songs that month.

Browsing: 5 x 200MB = 1GB x 30 = 30GB
TV: 72 x 300MB = 21.6GB
Games: 3 x 7GB = 21GB
Music: 100 x 4MB = 0.4GB

That's 73 GB a month. More than the 60GB many ISPs use at their standard tiers =/ This is also usage that is perfectly normal and legal.

 

[Bad Ass]

yeah hughesnet uses bandwidth abuse as an excuse to make me use 200 mb a day. at most i can watch five or six minutes of youtube per day, and i don't feel like booting up my phone's internet to watch a video.

fuck hughesnet.

 

[BuddyBlueBomber]

I feel fairly intimidated with this subject of net neutrality. It would very well stunt our freedoms with the largest communications device ever conceived, to a point where I can't even image the limitations that could be placed. Every single large company will attempt to get a slice of ultra-high speed internet and push out the competition, as well as the personal users that make up most of the entire internet. Just think of how prices for internet would be, considering that the only way to use it in such a world would be to buy the top of the line internet as well.

Just another classic example of how greed is the root of all problems one way or another in the world.

 

[Hipmonlee]

That is actually pretty heavy use FS. I mean, 5 hours of browsing plus 72 hours of downloaded tv + the time spent playing those games means thats like 8 hours every day spent on internet based activities..

Have a nice day.

 

[Firestorm]

Pft, who said I was playing the game.
I just buy games :(

As for the TV, those are usually about 20 mins each (or 40 mins for longer series) so that's 24 - 48 hours total for the month. Not only that, multiple people usually use the internet. You + your roommates or family. It really isn't out of the ordinary.

Honestly, last December I believe I downloaded 80GB worth of games due to Steam's sales.

I looked at my usage since I last connected again and it's at 1.2 GB. My computer has been on for 4.5 - 5 hours.

 

[cantab]

Motive is very important, and I have zero reason to believe Al Franken or the current adminstration are looking out for me instead of themselves.

And you believe corporations are doing anything other than looking after themselves?

If Bill Gates knew he could smack those upstart punks at Google around and they were going to do all his legwork for him, he'd jump onto their market share in an instant.

And if MS was big on the internet now they'd be the first to oppose net neutrality. Embrace, extend, extinguish, it's their self-admitted approach. /MS-bashing

Nor did super excessive bandwidth use. The things some people do with their internet is unbelievable. Yeah it sucks that everybody has to pay for what less than 10% of users do but its enough to push companies to reform. When the abusers move to another company, they end up forcing their hand as well. I work for an ISP so I have a relative idea of the inner workings of the companies and the response to bandwidth abuse is justified in my opinion.

But bandwidth is following a Moore's Law anyway. Also you can't just point the finger at the consumers. It's the website providers that are rolling out streaming TV catchup and HD videos and online games delivery.
And ultimately, it's the ISPs who choose how to charge for bandwidth. Advertising "unlimited bandwidth" and then hiding "fair use" limits in small print is deceitful and I have no sympathy for the ISP in that case. If an ISP provides an unmetered plan it has no right to complain about customers that cost it money since it is the ISP's fault for charging too little to cover costs.