Net neutrality - a case to be made for both sides

[vraiblonde]

The case for net neutrality has been blasted all over the place; I searched for some opposition opinions, and here's what I found:

I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshst...y-techie-against-net-neutrality/#301c2bb570d5

It gives the government more power over the Internet
http://mashable.com/2014/05/16/5-arguments-against-net-neutrality/#ssFKeeFkbmqV

Let me admit right off the bat that I don't really understand this debate and am unsure how it would affect me and my business. I mean, I think I do, but probably am only seeing one side of it because of the tech news I consume. Because I am in favor of search engine neutrality, I am probably in favor of net neutrality, but those opposed make a decent enough case.

Here is a very good article giving both sides, explained in simple terms:
https://www.digitalcare.org/net-neutrality-explained/

I do think internet service should be treated as a public utility. I think Google has made itself big enough and indispensable enough that it should be treated like a public utility as well. If they broke up Microsoft, they should absolutely break up Google. But I'm not sure that's the answer. I remember being outraged at the Microsoft decision, but that was also back in the day when we didn't live our lives online, so my perspective was different.

Basically, it comes down to: who do you trust, government or business? But what if the answer is "neither"? Typically I trust business over government, but then there's the Google problem. Oh, and the Facebook problem. Monopolies are bad, m'kay? No corporation should corner the market on information. Free enterprise means the company with the most money will always win, but is that in the best interests of the consumer? Do we care?

You'd think at some point these people would be happy with the billion$ they already make, but that doesn't seem to stop them from wanting more, and I have seen first hand with Google how they will push a political or social agenda. It's similar to if you flipped on your lightswitch and a pop up made you watch an advertiser's commercial before the power company let you have light. Or if you turned the spigot and, before water was allowed to come out, you had to see paid advertising.

So I can definitely understand the case for net neutrality, but I can also see the case against it as well.

 

[GURPS]

this guy gives a good background on the Telcos and Common Carrier Gov Regs and how we got here

 

[Starman]

If one believes in free markets there certainly is not a case to be made for both sides.

 

[Kyle]

You'd think at some point these people would be happy with the billion$ they already make, but that doesn't seem to stop them from wanting more, and I have seen first hand with Google how they will push a political or social agenda.

The people pushing the "share the wealth" agenda don't seem to share it when they have it!

Shocked I am.

 

[vraiblonde]

If one believes in free markets there certainly is not a case to be made for both sides.

I don't think the issue is black and white like that.

 

[vraiblonde]

The people pushing the "share the wealth" agenda don't seem to share it when they have it!

Shocked I am.

These wide-eyed idealistic college kids do tend to become hard core capitalists once they have the opportunity. Which is fine, just a part of growing up, but when they become information fascists we all should be concerned.

However, I don't trust the government with information delivery, either.

 

[Kyle]

These wide-eyed idealistic college kids do tend to become hard core capitalists once they have the opportunity. Which is fine, just a part of growing up, but when they become information fascists we all should be concerned.

However, I don't trust the government with information delivery, either.

Hardcore capitalism is fine... But they're still pushing the socialist BS line.

I say it should cost them to do so.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hardcore capitalism is fine... But they're still pushing the socialist BS line.

I say it should cost them to do so.

If I trusted the government more I'd agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm still on the fence with this issue and not convinced either way is the right way.

 

[GURPS]

I do think internet service should be treated as a public utility. I think Google has made itself big enough and indispensable enough that it should be treated like a public utility as well. If they broke up Microsoft, they should absolutely break up Google. But I'm not sure that's the answer. I remember being outraged at the Microsoft decision, but that was also back in the day when we didn't live our lives online, so my perspective was different.

Basically, it comes down to: who do you trust, government or business? But what if the answer is "neither"? Typically I trust business over government, but then there's the Google problem. Oh, and the Facebook problem. Monopolies are bad, m'kay? No corporation should corner the market on information. Free enterprise means the company with the most money will always win, but is that in the best interests of the consumer? Do we care?

Can you believe at one time companies fought over web browsers .... back in the 90's Netscape Navigator Actually Cost MONEY :shrug:

that was the jist of the Microsoft suit - M$ 'gave away' or bundled its web browser with its Operating System ....
[like people were too stupid to down load their own choice]

The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser sales (at the time web browsers were not freeware, but were sold individually on discs). The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system. Bundling them together is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

and yes Microsoft was very Anti-Competitive - review BeOS lawsuit

M$ caught wind of BeOS deal with a couple of Computer OEM's basically saying there would be higher Windows License Costs if they continued with the deal to sell hardware with any OS installed besides Windows

Be Inc sues Microsoft



and now Google / Twitter / Facebook / YouTube - control a vast amount of information as the Go To Search Engine / Social Media Platform / Video Sharing Platform for millions
at what point does a business move from a business and more of a MUST USE / HAVE Public Utility
one could argue you do not NEED Google like you NEED

- Clean Drinking Water / Sewer System
- Electricity
- Fire or Police Dept.

Society will not collapse if Google is not around ...

however I think an argument can be made for some regulation [although I really don't want the Gov Involved]

I would prefer some public pressure ...
But where, where is the competition for revenue, you would normally go to Company B if Company A does not treat you right

:shrug:

Once the Gov. gets involved you start having DRONES Hired By Political Appointees passing Judgement on what is 'fake' news or free speech
[look at college campuses right now]

and now we are back to a 'Fairness' Doctrine ...
- only history has shown there is nothing fair about how Progressives [Fascists] Treat opinions they don't like
- we already have YouTube Blocking the likes of Prager U from making any money
- Twitter banning Conservative Commentators

- Oh you support Freedom of Speech Do You ... [well does that include White Supremacists / Neo-Nazis] well YOU Are Banned then


how do you balance Public Interests with the Right to Run YOUR business as you see fit
yes We The People aka the GOV. setup and allowed 'Public' Utilities to have a monopoly in a given situation in exchange for Public Moderation

- no one MADE Google a Monopoly they earned that doing a better JOB then anyone else

like web browsers there was at one time a plethora of Search Engines:

Archie
Veronica & Jughead
World Wide Web Virtual Library (VLib)
World Wide Web Wanderer

EINet Galaxy
ALIWEB

Yahoo - 1994
Web Crawler - 1994
Lycos - 1994
LookSmart - 1995
Excite - 1993 [ Uni Archie Project] 1995 [Commercial Release]
AltaVista - 1995
Infoseek - 1994 [paid] 1995 [default for Netscape Navigator]
Hot Bot - 1996 [run by Wired]
Inktomi - 1996
MetaCrawler - 1996
Ask Jeeves [Ask.com] - 1997
Google - 1997
Dogpile - 1998
MSN Search (now Windows Live) – 1998


Where are they now - out of business or bought out and merged with other companies
who or what will rise next to Challenge the Status Quo

does anyone still care that Windows is the dominant OS now

:shrug:



the Internet has survived the last 25 yrs with Minimal Gov Oversight

all of the 'claimed' indiscretions or problems with / between Internet Companies have already been addressed and are NO LONGER an ISSUE

like the Browser Wars of the 1990s by the time the Gov was finished - Netscape No Longer Existed as a Company and everyone had moved on

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Can you believe at one time companies fought over web browsers .... back in the 90's Netscape Navigator Actually Cost MONEY :shrug:

When? I used Netscape from version 1.something to 4.0? (communicator) and never paid for any of them. Before that I used Mosaic 16 and then 32.

 

[GURPS]

When? I used Netscape from version 1.8 to 4.0? (communicator) and never paid for any of them. Before that I used Mosaic 16 and then 32.

I also downloaded the Netscape Navigator 1.2 free in 1994/5
However the stipulation was free = no support / were supposed to be a student or EDU or other NON Commercial

otherwise you should have ponied up $ 20 bucks I think


yeah Navigator was the earlier version
- Communicator had the Email Client IIRC later

Netscape announced in its first press release (13 October 1994) that it would make Navigator available without charge to all non-commercial users, and beta versions of version 1.0 and 1.1 were indeed freely downloadable in November 1994 and March 1995, with the full version 1.0 available in December 1994. Netscape's initial corporate policy regarding Navigator claimed that it would make Navigator freely available for non-commercial use in accordance with the notion that Internet software should be distributed for free.[6]

However, within two months of that press release, Netscape apparently reversed its policy on who could freely obtain and use version 1.0 by only mentioning that educational and non-profit institutions could use version 1.0 at no charge.[7]

The reversal was complete with the availability of version 1.1 beta on 6 March 1995, in which a press release states that the final 1.1 release would be available at no cost only for academic and non-profit organizational use. Gone was the notion expressed in the first press release that Navigator would be freely available in the spirit of Internet software.

Some security experts and cryptographers found out that all released Netscape versions had major security problems with crashing the browser with long URLs and 40 bits encryption keys.[8][9]

The first few releases of the product were made available in “commercial” and “evaluation” versions; for example, version “1.0” and version “1.0N”. The “N” evaluation versions were completely identical to the commercial versions; the letter was there to remind people to pay for the browser once they felt they had tried it long enough and were satisfied with it. This distinction was formally dropped within a year of the initial release, and the full version of the browser continued to be made available for free online, with boxed versions available on floppy disks (and later CDs) in stores along with a period of phone support. During this era, "Internet Starter Kit" books were popular, and usually included a floppy disk or CD containing internet software, and this was a popular means of obtaining Netscape's and other browsers.[10] Email support was initially free, and remained so for a year or two until the volume of support requests grew too high.

During development, the Netscape browser was known by the code name Mozilla, which became the name of a Godzilla-like cartoon dragon mascot used prominently on the company's web site. The Mozilla name was also used as the User-Agent in HTTP requests by the browser. Other web browsers claimed to be compatible with Netscape's extensions to HTML, and therefore used the same name in their User-Agent identifiers so that web servers would send them the same pages as were sent to Netscape browsers. Mozilla is now a generic name for matters related to the open source successor to Netscape Communicator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

 

[PeoplesElbow]

I also downloaded the Netscape Navigator 1.2 free in 1994/5
However the stipulation was free = no support / were supposed to be a student or EDU or other NON Commercial

otherwise you should have ponied up $ 20 bucks I think


yeah Navigator was the earlier version
- Communicator had the Email Client IIRC later




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator

I remember being excited when they changed from the big N that just went "in and out" to having shooting stars in with it, lol.

 

[GURPS]

I remember being excited when they changed from the big N that just went "in and out" to having shooting stars in with it, lol.

I used Netscape for years as my go to browser ..... 2.0 had Java

Chatting on WBS.net Streamed after that ... no reloading the webpage to get the latest chat text


of course then my Mac only had 4mb of memory so I had issues running without Ram Doubler
but that had issues with Netscape and Java causing frequent browser crashes


ah the 1990s computers were so basic then

 

[vraiblonde]

- no one MADE Google a Monopoly they earned that doing a better JOB then anyone else

I know a lot of people who disagree with that - me included. There was a time when Google.com did a better job than anyone else, now they are an advertisement server and little more. And I get it - we make our money by advertising as well, but we're honest about it. Our advertisers clearly come first and we don't pretend they don't. When Google is taking money from news media corporations to promote their political agenda first, that becomes problematic. Now they are partnered with select news venues and are no longer an objective search engine, as originally billed and as is their public image. They did a bait and switch on the consumer, and that's fraud in my mind.

Now, we get a lot of free stuff from Google - email, calendars to embed in websites, software tools, Google Earth, etc etc etc. It's the dishonesty that bothers me, not the commercialization.

 

[terbear1225]

I know a lot of people who disagree with that - me included. There was a time when Google.com did a better job than anyone else, now they are an advertisement server and little more. And I get it - we make our money by advertising as well, but we're honest about it. Our advertisers clearly come first and we don't pretend they don't. When Google is taking money from news media corporations to promote their political agenda first, that becomes problematic. Now they are partnered with select news venues and are no longer an objective search engine, as originally billed and as is their public image. They did a bait and switch on the consumer, and that's fraud in my mind.

Now, we get a lot of free stuff from Google - email, calendars to embed in websites, software tools, Google Earth, etc etc etc. It's the dishonesty that bothers me, not the commercialization.

This is my concern with the potential loss of net neutrality. There is a lot of talk about how the free market will force those who slow down/ block service to either stop doing so or go out of business but that requires that the consumer be aware of the slow down or blockage. Let's say comcast slows down access to Amazon Prime. How long would it take for the average consumer to figure out whether the issue is the fault of Comcast or Amazon? How much business would be lost due to the slow down? What if I"m locked into a contract with Comcast that I can't afford to get out of?

 

[Kyle]

Not to mention that many cable subscribers have only one provider in their area to choose.

 

[GURPS]

When Google is taking money from news media corporations to promote their political agenda first, that becomes problematic. Now they are partnered with select news venues and are no longer an objective search engine, as originally billed and as is their public image. They did a bait and switch on the consumer, and that's fraud in my mind.

Indeed .... filtering content they don't agree with

Now, we get a lot of free stuff from Google - email, calendars to embed in websites, software tools, Google Earth, etc etc etc. It's the dishonesty that bothers me, not the commercialization.

 

[GURPS]

This is my concern with the potential loss of net neutrality. There is a lot of talk about how the free market will force those who slow down/ block service to either stop doing so or go out of business but that requires that the consumer be aware of the slow down or blockage.

look at the companies supporting NN - Google and the link - you really think Google CARES one IOTA about YOUR Access

Let's say comcast slows down access to Amazon Prime. How long would it take for the average consumer to figure out whether the issue is the fault of Comcast or Amazon? How much business would be lost due to the slow down? What if I"m locked into a contract with Comcast that I can't afford to get out of?

this has already been sorted out in a Cat Fight with Verizon / Netflicks IIRC [maybe Comcast]

pubic outraged forced the offending ISP to back off

 

[vraiblonde]

This is my concern with the potential loss of net neutrality. There is a lot of talk about how the free market will force those who slow down/ block service to either stop doing so or go out of business but that requires that the consumer be aware of the slow down or blockage. Let's say comcast slows down access to Amazon Prime. How long would it take for the average consumer to figure out whether the issue is the fault of Comcast or Amazon? How much business would be lost due to the slow down? What if I"m locked into a contract with Comcast that I can't afford to get out of?

What if they did like Verizon, with their new "unlimited" plan, where you technically get unlimited data, but the first x-gigs is highspeed, then it throttles down to slower? Or broke it down into plans, with cheaper and slower for people who just use it for routine internet and email, and a more expensive package for people who watch TV and do more streaming?

There's a way to make (most) everyone happy, but I'm positive government isn't going to figure it out and there needs to be incentive for providers to figure it out. Although with net neutrality service providers will pretty much have to figure it out.

 

[vraiblonde]

Indeed .... filtering content they don't agree with

You know, I'm not convinced it's filtering. It could simply be that Politico and Buzzfeed and whoever else is paying them for advertising, which is why their stories show up first even when the story isn't relevant to your search terms.