Net neutrality - a case to be made for both sides

[GURPS]

Net Neutrality didn't govern content providers such as Metrocast (TV), Sling, CNN, FOX, Google, Youtube, etc. Net Neutrality governed ISPs (bandwidth providers).

and that is the problem, someone selling you an internet Connection is NOT a Common Carrier


NN would have given a huge advantage to edge providers while competition from ISP would have been greatly restricted - whey do you thing Google was all in for NN :shrug:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

 

[glhs837]

Monopolies are only as good as the technology behind them. We've seen how this works: a service gets too big for its britches, and several enterprising young studs and studettes rush in to provide an alternative, and fat cat monopolist goes the way of the dinosaur.

Which is how I usually answer that statement. You have three or more companies right laying the groundwork for direct broadband satellite internet. And not like DirecTV, where all traffic goes to the sats over the equator and then back down, leading to pretty large lags and bottlenecks. These use constallations of smaller sats so there is always one nearby that routes traffic more like a sat based cell network than current sat internet schemes.

That's my whole point. It does control the content we have access to and ISPs should not be doing that. If one purchases a certain amount of bandwidth, they should be able to use it as they wish. The same way one purchases electricity. SMECO doesn't tell us which brand or type of appliance we can use. They sell us electricity and we use it for what we want. Now, if Maytag doesn't offer the appliance we want, we can choose Whirlpool or Hotpoint. If Metrocast doesn't offer the programming (content) we want, we can cancel cable tv (and keep Internet) and go for Sling or Netfix and stream over the Internet connection. But if Metrocast is allowed to restrict or throttle down the throughput for those services (thus making them unusable) because they feel it competes with their cable tv offering, that's where the problem comes in and where Net Neutrality came in. Net Neutrality didn't govern content providers such as Metrocast (TV), Sling, CNN, FOX, Google, Youtube, etc. Net Neutrality governed ISPs (bandwidth providers).

So, what about when the vendor does allow you to access content you paid for through Netflix, but also offers another similar service free of charge. Does that still count as resricting you?

 

[awpitt]

Which is how I usually answer that statement. You have three or more companies right laying the groundwork for direct broadband satellite internet. And not like DirecTV, where all traffic goes to the sats over the equator and then back down, leading to pretty large lags and bottlenecks. These use constallations of smaller sats so there is always one nearby that routes traffic more like a sat based cell network than current sat internet schemes.




So, what about when the vendor does allow you to access content you paid for through Netflix, but also offers another similar service free of charge. Does that still count as resricting you?

If I want Netflix and it's not restricted, whatever else (another similar service) doesn't matter and that's not a restriction.

 

[glhs837]

If I want Netflix and it's not restricted, whatever else (another similar service) doesn't matter and that's not a restriction.

So how does that work in a mobile context when the captive provider gets to send you content without using your data, but the other provider does? Is that a restriction?

 

[awpitt]

So how does that work in a mobile context when the captive provider gets to send you content without using your data, but the other provider does? Is that a restriction?

How would it not be using my data? Everything that comes into my house, through my cable modem (regardless of source) is using my data.

 

[glhs837]

How would it not be using my data? Everything that comes into my house, through my cable modem (regardless of source) is using my data.

Note the "mobile context" bit. This is where the telcos come in. Say Verzion gives DirecTV a free pass on data, saying anything I stream from DTV through Verizon does not count against my data caps. But Netflix and Amazon do count........ Bascially forcing me into signing up with that captive provider..... now I'm on an unlimited plan so it's not a big deal, but most people are not.

 

[Clem72]

Everyone here with Metrocast is about to see how this model works first hand. When the new company takes over and starts enforcing their caps (as they have in their other markets) and you suddenly have to pay $10/GB to watch your streaming TV after you run through the generous 100GB they give you for $69/mo. Unless of course you stream through one of their partner services which don't count against the cap.

 

[Misfit]

Comcast deleted net neutrality pledge the same day repeal announced

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

We wrote earlier this week about how Comcast has changed its promises to uphold net neutrality by pulling back from previous statements that it won't charge websites or other online applications for fast lanes.

Comcast spokesperson Sena Fitzmaurice has been claiming that we got the story wrong. But a further examination of how Comcast's net neutrality promises have changed over time reveals another interesting tidbit—Comcast deleted a "no paid prioritization" pledge from its net neutrality webpage on the very same day that the Federal Communications Commission announced its initial plan to repeal net neutrality rules.

 

[awpitt]

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

...and it begins.

 

[GURPS]

The use of fraudulent comments to sway the FCC easily fits into what prosecutors call a “1001 violation.” According to Title 18, Section 1001 of the United States criminal code, it is illegal to “knowingly and willfully” use “any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.” There is no doubt the use of fake email addresses, other people’s names and addresses, and computer programs to simulate human speech, is such a violation of Section 1001.

I also believe these fake comments qualify under the federal criminal code (Title 18) as wire fraud; specifically Sections 1342 and 1343, in which fraudulent schemes are perpetrated using any form of electronic communication. Add to this if multiple individuals are involved in the fraud, which very easily could be the case, and it would amount to a Section 371 violation for conspiring to defraud the federal government. Depending on what is discovered in the investigation, this could just be the start.

Although initial investigations reveal most spam as favoring the FCC’s decision to rescind the 2015 regulations, there is evidence of massive fraud on both sides of the issue. There is also the possibility that favoring the FCC’s proposed plan was deceptive as well, hoping that it would cast a broad cloud over the entire process, and possibly delay it altogether; a good bet since that was precisely what Democrats in Congress called for when reports first surfaced of the suspicious commentary. It may also be an issue for an impending battle in the Senate over net neutrality, as Democrats attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to stop the FCC’s decision.

This speaks to the point I made two weeks ago. The damage caused by fraud to such a crucial element of participatory democracy – the public’s feedback on rules proposed by an otherwise unelected body of regulators – is very real, and offers government officials a viable excuse to ignore public input, and do as they please. This is unacceptable.


https://townhall.com/columnists/bob...ving-of-justice-department-attention-n2424724

 

[Lurk]

...and it begins.

I know what you mean. There was a tremendous seismic shock felt around the world at that moment. Buildings in Italy crumbled into dust it was so bad.

 

[Gilligan]

...and it begins.

Yep.

 

[Misfit]

Comcast, Cox, Frontier All Raising Internet Access Rates for 2018

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/

At least three major ISPs have already announced significant price hikes for 2018. News of the increases come just days after the FCC voted to roll back net neutrality protections.

 

[GURPS]

Looking for Leverage

Regardless of their politics, state net neutrality advocates face a tough course through unfamiliar territory. In its lengthy order abolishing net neutrality policy, the FCC asserted the federal government’s right to preempt other laws or policies. “Allowing state and local governments to adopt their own separate requirements, which could impose far greater burdens than the federal regulatory regime, could significantly disrupt the balance we strike here,” reads the FCC’s abolition order.

“Telecommunications in particular—it’s very, very hairy to try to do this without triggering federal preemption,” says Jake Egloff, the legislative aide to New York Democratic assemblymember Patricia Fahy. They have also crafted legislation establishing net neutrality requirements. Rather than regulate ISPs directly, it would exert financial pressure by only allowing the state and local governments to contract with ISPs certified as meeting New York’s net neutrality requirements. “I don’t want to say backdoor, but it is a side door,” says Fahy, whose district includes the state capital, Albany.

The state’s “power of the purse” is just one of the side-door measures her colleague Hoylman and California’s Wiener are considering. They might also make meeting net neutrality standards a prerequisite for awarding cable franchises or providing access to state-owned land or utility poles for laying cables. And they are looking at the front door approach of regulating ISPs directly under consumer protection law. “The FCC issued their fiat that tells the states they can’t do anything. We don’t think the FCC has that power, and they’ve lost that argument in court before,” says Wiener.

He and other state legislators point to a March, 2016 court case as precedent. While under Democrat control, the FCC tried to preempt state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that prevented municipal-owned broadband networks from expanding. The FCC said its mandate to expand access to broadband allowed it to override the state restrictions, which critics called favors to private ISPs. The Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals disagreed, finding that the FCC didn’t have the authority to meddle in state affairs.



https://www.fastcompany.com/40510095/snubbing-fcc-states-are-writing-their-own-net-neutrality-laws

State and local [last mile] monopolies are part of the problem with competition ....

 

[GURPS]

The video’s theoretical BK store – sells three different speeds of “Whopper Pass.” You can pay $4.99, $12.99 or $25.99 for your burger – with the higher prices ensuring you increasingly fast delivery.

The customers are incensed. Oops – and there you have it: The first reason why this video is dumb. And why Net Neutrality regulations are dumb and unnecessary.

[clip]

Oh: And any ISP stupid enough to slow down anyone as an extortion effort – would run afoul of several existing consumer-protection laws. And be swiftly dealt with by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Thus there is zero need for any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations – such as the massive ones imposed in 2015 by the Barack Obama Administration. Which were in December rightly, reasonably undone by the Donald Trump Administration.

All of this and more is why – in the two-plus decades without the FCC having any say in any of this – nothing like what BK depicts in its ridiculous video….ever actually happened.

Another reason the BK video is stupid: ISPs do charge more for even more bandwidth – because everyone on the planet charges more for more of anything.

Ask BK why they charge more for a Double Whopper than they do for a Whopper Jr. Where’s their Whopper Neutrality?

In fact, BK violates these Neutrality principles all over the place – beyond just their tiered-prices for tiered-burgers. They engage in all sorts of non-neutral exclusionary practices.

BK won’t sell you a McDonald’s Big Mac or a Wendy’s Single, Double or Triple. Where’s the Neutrality?

BK won’t sell you a Pepsi or an RC Cola – because they have an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola. Where’s the Neutrality?

And to further flesh out the utter stupidity of the one-size-fits-all model of bandwidth speed – where “all bits are treated equal”:

“What’s a truer depiction of Burger King under Title II utility regulation? A Burger King menu with only one product at one price – an expensive all-you-can-eat meal. For those ordering 10 triple-Whoppers and onion rings, with extra large milkshakes, it might be a good deal.

“For those seeking one salad or one chicken sandwich, and in a hurry, the high-priced all-you-can-eat plan would be a terrible idea. The all-you-can-eat subsidy would attract all the gluttons in town and discourage the customer seeking a quick snack.


https://www.redstate.com/setonmotle...-proves-dumb-unnecessary-net-neutrality-regs/

 

[Clem72]

The video’s theoretical BK store – sells three different speeds of “Whopper Pass.” You can pay $4.99, $12.99 or $25.99 for your burger – with the higher prices ensuring you increasingly fast delivery.

The customers are incensed. Oops – and there you have it: The first reason why this video is dumb. And why Net Neutrality regulations are dumb and unnecessary.

[clip]

Oh: And any ISP stupid enough to slow down anyone as an extortion effort – would run afoul of several existing consumer-protection laws. And be swiftly dealt with by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Thus there is zero need for any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations – such as the massive ones imposed in 2015 by the Barack Obama Administration. Which were in December rightly, reasonably undone by the Donald Trump Administration.

All of this and more is why – in the two-plus decades without the FCC having any say in any of this – nothing like what BK depicts in its ridiculous video….ever actually happened.

Another reason the BK video is stupid: ISPs do charge more for even more bandwidth – because everyone on the planet charges more for more of anything.

Ask BK why they charge more for a Double Whopper than they do for a Whopper Jr. Where’s their Whopper Neutrality?

In fact, BK violates these Neutrality principles all over the place – beyond just their tiered-prices for tiered-burgers. They engage in all sorts of non-neutral exclusionary practices.

BK won’t sell you a McDonald’s Big Mac or a Wendy’s Single, Double or Triple. Where’s the Neutrality?

BK won’t sell you a Pepsi or an RC Cola – because they have an exclusive contract with Coca-Cola. Where’s the Neutrality?

And to further flesh out the utter stupidity of the one-size-fits-all model of bandwidth speed – where “all bits are treated equal”:

“What’s a truer depiction of Burger King under Title II utility regulation? A Burger King menu with only one product at one price – an expensive all-you-can-eat meal. For those ordering 10 triple-Whoppers and onion rings, with extra large milkshakes, it might be a good deal.

“For those seeking one salad or one chicken sandwich, and in a hurry, the high-priced all-you-can-eat plan would be a terrible idea. The all-you-can-eat subsidy would attract all the gluttons in town and discourage the customer seeking a quick snack.


https://www.redstate.com/setonmotle...-proves-dumb-unnecessary-net-neutrality-regs/

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you know the difference between BK not selling Big Macs and an ISP charging you more for packets delivered from a company that competes with them in a different market.

You may even know the difference between charging more for faster internet access (5mbit/s vs 50mbit/s) vice charging more per type of service (video/music/etc.) delivered over that connection you already pay a base rate for. Those were clearly the article authors mistakes, not yours. You wouldn't be that big of a dummy.

You want an example of how things are going to end up, look at Mexico where ISPs will sell you packages of access:
4GB of Data plus unlimited streaming music from OurPartnerMusic for $, add OurPartnerVideo SD for $$, add OurPartnerVideo HD for $$$. No option to add NetFlix or Hulu, those always come out of your base data. So good luck with your 45 minutes of HD video from NetFlix (or you could upgrade to 100GB for $$$$$$$).

 

[GURPS]

so everyone is equal, no matter how much band width they use ?


Cell Phone Companies charge more, why cannot Internet Service Providers :shrug:

 

[GURPS]

My bet: The internet will continue to improve, both in terms of the speed of connection and the range of content, applications, and experiences we'll be accessing. As economist and net neutrality critic Tom Hazlett suggests, there may well be "paid prioritization" and continuing attempts to build "walled gardens" like Facebook's, but they will flourish or die based on whether they serve consumers' interests and needs. The advent of 5G and other technologies that will add to the competitive marketplace for internet access will make current arguments about net neutrality completely moot.

At the same time, there is a low-grade war on free expression going on in the country. Most, if not all, of that is happening at the platform level or from the government, not the easily vilified ISPs. That's one of the takeaways from the recent congressional testimony of Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. Republicans and Democrats alike told the social-media magnate they wanted to regulate his business sector, and he happily agreed. Twitter, Google (including YouTube), and other companies are policing speech more than ever and eliminating, demonetizing, and punishing "bad" actors, sometimes to curry favor with the government and sometimes to curry favor with users. The "safe harbor" provision known as Section 230 that long protected websites and ISPs from being prosecuted for crimes committed by their users has been "decimated" by new laws aimed at ending sex trafficking. In this context, anything that takes away the government's power to govern the internet has to be seen as a win for free speech.

Last week, I participated in an Intelligence Squared debate on the question of Net Neutrality. The proposition under discussion was "Preserve Net Neutrality: All Data Are Created Equal." Defending that proposition were former FCC chief Tom Wheeler, who instituted the Open Internet Order of 2015, and the head of Mozilla, Mitchell Baker. Joining me in arguing against the proposition was Michael Katz, a Berkeley economist and former chief economist at the FCC. It was an Oxford-style debate, so the audience voted before and after the debate; the winner is the team that gains more votes. The pre-debate vote was 60 percent for the resolution, 23 percent against, and 17 percent undecided. The post-debate vote was 60 percent for the resolution, 31 percent against the motion, and 9 percent undecided. So Katz and I technically chalked up a win, despite the high level of support for the other side.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/23/net-neutrality-is-officially-dead-dont-e

 

[GURPS]

‘Net Neutrality’ Has Been In Effect For One Month. Are You Dead Yet?

The Democrats’ “net neutrality” narrative never made any sense. The “net neutrality” regulations made the Internet less free. Moreover, they were an aberration without which the Internet expanded and developed marvelously for decades. If Democrats wanted to keep the Internet the way it had always been, they would have campaigned to repeal the regulations. But the Democrat hysteria over “net neutrality” was never about preserving the Internet we all knew and loved; it was about grabbing ever more power.

Catastrophe is always imminent, according to the Left. They warn of disaster but promise to save us if we’ll only give them a bit more power and a bit more money. In his 1956 book When Prophecy Fails, psychologist Leon Festinger found that doomsday cultists wake up the morning after Armageddon, not in disbelief, but even firmer in their convictions. The reason is that the end of the world is never averted; it’s only ever postponed. A failed prediction or two will not suffice to disband the cult. In order to leave, one must first recognize the flaws in the belief system itself.

The Democrat Party will continue to peddle the same old Kool-Aid, through the midterm elections and beyond. Armageddons will come and go, the cultists will remain, and those fortunate few who recognize the internal illogic of their own ideologies will walk away.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/3337...en-effect-one-month-are-you-michael-j-knowles

 

[GURPS]

Federal Court Upholds FCC Decision to Roll Back Obama-Era Net Neutrality Rules


Today, by a 2-1 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided largely with the FCC, upholding the primary regulatory rollback as a valid exercise of its authority. In the nearly 200 page opinion, which is heavy on technical detail, the court wrote that while the challengers raised "numerous objections" aiming to show that the FCC's reclassification is "unreasonable," the judges found them "unconvincing."

The court raised several smaller issues related to public safety and "the regulation of pole attachments," and allowed for the possibility that states might implement their own net neutrality regulations. California has already enacted such a law, but had suspended enforcement pending the outcome of this case. And the court cautioned that its judgment was not an endorsement of the policy decision on the merits, but a judgment about its legality.

The evidence for the Trump FCC's decision to roll back the Obama administration's regulatory expansion, however, is in the state of the internet itself: Broadband speeds are up, and the United States leads the world in overall data traffic. The internet, while imperfect, has not become the sluggish, apocalyptic, dysfunctional mess that net neutrality backers warned.