Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[innonimatu]

Perhaps I'm getting old and grumpy, or perhaps I've been somehow privileged and didn't ever notice it. But this whole noise about "net neutrality" strikes me as being one of those "first world problems" that actually even exist only in people's imagination. I can't recall being frustrated with internet speed since the last millennium! Dial-up was bad, after that it was always good enough. No, I don't need one gigabit at home.

What are people worried about, exactly? How much bandwidth do they need? What traffic do they fear will be throttled? A trickle is a lot in a one gigabit connection, or even a 100mb one. Only video on demand requires that kind of sustained bandwidth, and why should that not be paid for separately? You have been paying for that separately for years, it's called cable TV. The new thing is that a few big corporations want to sell it "over the Internet" instead of through a separate channel (which in the last few years was over the IP network already) and demand that they should be able to use the infrastructure paid for by all ISP customers for the delivery of their high-bandwidth services to just some of them.

They are not selling "internet service"; they are selling some specific media services that happen to run over the internet - I say let people choose whether to pay for that or not.

Monopoly fears are a separate issue. Is is not economically sound to have several cables, several networks, built into residential zones. It is, as I was saying, a natural monopoly. But multiple networks nevertheless are common, and it will happen if people get dissatisfied with one service: that kind of business does not have big barriers to entry, and mobile networks provide additional competition. No one is going to suffer information censorship because of traffic shaping done for bandwidth/economic reasons. They are just going to have to pay more to use data-intensive services that the people who do not use those services. Of course the big data companies are set against this, and have been orchestrating a PR campaign for "net neutrality".

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The fear of having a speed hit is a secondary concern to the amount of paywalls that are about to go up and the amount of control that is being ceded to the private sector over this public space.

Being able to seek rent is a means to exercise control. The internet is central to the functioning of both the economy and society at large. We should not allow corporations to stifle innovation and exert control by extorting fees from everyone who needs to use it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Also, there is an enormous barrier to entry in the ISP market...

And many people literally cannot switch to other services, no matter how badly they want to.

 

[Silurian]

For my location in a meduim sized town (65K) in Devon one switching site gives me 69 contract options from 13 ISPs for my broadband. Different contract length, max downloads, speed, and some with phone and or TV. Can't you do this in the US.

from U Switch (UK switching company

""Thanks to new regulations from Ofcom, changing broadband providers is easier than ever before.

If you changed providers under the older system, you’ll be relieved to know that these days, you don’t need a migration authorisation code, also known as a MAC code. And in most cases, you don’t even need to contact the provider you want to leave to cancel your contract. Now, the responsibility for managing the switch lies with the provider to whom a customer is switching.""

https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/guides/switch/

 

[Lexicus]

And many people literally cannot switch to other services, no matter how badly they want to.

We tried to switch from Comcast to something else last year. Our only other option was Verizon, and they could only do DSL internet. Something something free market, something something consumer choice

But this whole noise about "net neutrality" strikes me as being one of those "first world problems" that actually even exist only in people's imagination

I know almost nothing about these issues but just look at the people and organizations supporting the end of net neutrality. Do you really believe their motives are noble and pure?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

For my location in a meduim sized town (65K) in Devon one switching site gives me 69 contract options from 13 ISPs for my broadband. Different contract length, max downloads, speed, and some with phone and or TV. Can't you do this in the US.

from U Switch (UK switching company

""Thanks to new regulations from Ofcom, changing broadband providers is easier than ever before.

If you changed providers under the older system, you’ll be relieved to know that these days, you don’t need a migration authorisation code, also known as a MAC code. And in most cases, you don’t even need to contact the provider you want to leave to cancel your contract. Now, the responsibility for managing the switch lies with the provider to whom a customer is switching.""

https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/guides/switch/

In much of the US, you have one option for broadband in many areas or even none; so the answer to the bolded question is 'sometimes no'.

People on reddit are hoping that if net neutrality ends that SpaceX will swoop in and save the day when their internet service gets launched (literally). I do not really think they would act any different than the other ISPs on this issue if throttling/gatekeeping become the new normal. It will give consumers more choice, regardless of where they are (since satellites are always overhead for everyone) but I don't think it will fix the end of net neutrality.

 

[innonimatu]

I know almost nothing about these issues but just look at the people and organizations supporting the end of net neutrality. Do you really believe their motives are noble and pure?

No I don't. And it may be indeed that the reality on the ground in much of the US is substantially different from Western Europe, without the competition and multiple available services we find here.

 

[Silurian]

I think it has something to do with history and market regulation.

Many European phone systems were state owned.
UKs was owned by the Post Office which spun off its telecoms into BT (British Telecom).
BT was sold but other companies are allowed to use its cables by the market regulator.
There have been calls for Open Reach, the part of BT that deals with the cables etc to be seperated from BT because of allegations of it favouring BT.
Most of the UK population gets broadband from multiple ISP with multiple contract options.
Some rural areas that are a long way from an exchange can not get broadband and there are complaints that Open Reach are not cabling them fast enough.

Some other European countries have better broadband than the UK.

 

[Lexicus]

No I don't. And it may be indeed that the reality on the ground in much of the US is substantially different from Western Europe, without the competition and multiple available services we find here.

Yes, that is exactly how it is in the US. Any region has a monopoly or at most perhaps an oligopoly with three big players. I don't personally know of any areas that have more than two choices for internet provider. Where I live we can go with Comcast (cable) or Verizon (DSL).

 

[Silurian]

At the moment I can see five different ISP being used by neigbours.

 

[warpus]

What are people worried about, exactly?

People are worried that the amazing nature of the internet might be squandered and that average people like you or me might not be able to use its power to better our lives. With net neutrality in place it allows an average person to start up an online business - and if it's marketed well and/or goes viral, it has the potential of taking off and changing this person's life. Without net neutrality, small nobodies would never be able to do that without a sizeable investment from somebody else. It would be impossible to compete with large companies unless you had $$$ to begin with. In short, net neutrality has the potential to empower people, as it already has in the past. A lot of the large online companies worth billions today were at one point just an idea worked on by one or two people in a basement. Without net neutrality, such innovations would no longer be possible.

Instead of all that potential for innovation and self-betterment, without net neutrality you instead put all the power in the hands of people who already have power. Such an amazing tool, one of the most amazing creations humanity has ever put together, and we'd squander it to make people who are already rich even richer? What a waste. With net neutrality in place they can get richer anyway, they just have to put in a bit more effort instead of just throwing money at the problem.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

And it goes beyond economic empowerment - our social structures and services are built up around the internet as the main infrastructure.

 

[Kyriakos]

An issue in the near future may also arise out of some mega sites that currently don't charge you - but make up for that by being authoritatian and collecting info like up to your phone number just so that you can join. Eg Facebook has repeatedly assured its users that 'it is free now, and will always be free', but legally that isn't binding at all. Tomorrow they could start randomly charging people, for example at first they might charge anyone who has 'more than x pages/groups', cause, you know, they need space or some other fake reason.
Linkedin may be similar, though that is more directly tied to job seeking.

Google is a threat that already has materialized, though. It is pretty damning that effectively it forced some kind of policing on the web, and people didn't seem to care much.

 

[innonimatu]

People are worried that the amazing nature of the internet might be squandered and that average people like you or me might not be able to use its power to better our lives. With net neutrality in place it allows an average person to start up an online business - and if it's marketed well and/or goes viral, it has the potential of taking off and changing this person's life.

So you want internet-as-lottery? Because it's about the same odds. Better our lives by living under delusions. Being anesthetized by them.

And of course the existence of such illusions of "making it big" creates the atmosphere of consent necessary for a deeply unequal society to endure. 99% of the people may be comparatively poor and powerless, but they keep dreaming of making the 1%.

Without net neutrality, small nobodies would never be able to do that without a sizeable investment from somebody else. It would be impossible to compete with large companies unless you had $$$ to begin with.

Evey one of the big "internet companies" required sizable investments before they started turning in positive cash flow. Many are still burning investor money. Thus under the "net neutrality" thing.

In short, net neutrality has the potential to empower people, as it already has in the past. A lot of the large online companies worth billions today were at one point just an idea worked on by one or two people in a basement. Without net neutrality, such innovations would no longer be possible.

Let's look at results, with net neutrality it is easy because the experience has already been conducted and the results are available to be checked.
How many people has it empowered? How many has it dis-empowered? How many bosses, how many peons?

The very metric of success you used (create companies worth billions" betrays the interned as a tool that has already been used for disepowerement. Amazon empowered Bezos and his investors. It disempowered the former owners of all the brick-and-mortal shops closing because its businesses were replaced. Net result: concentration of wealth and power.

That is always the social price of creating companies worth billions: they are worth biliions because they have concentrated control over wealth and power.

Instead of all that potential for innovation and self-betterment, without net neutrality you instead put all the power in the hands of people who already have power. Such an amazing tool, one of the most amazing creations humanity has ever put together, and we'd squander it to make people who are already rich even richer? What a waste.

They already have the power, and they acquired it under "net neutrality". They bettered their wallets and reduced their "users" (aka, products) to subjects of psychological experiments in finding the best way to manipulate and extract rents from them.

The internet of "net neutrality", funded by advertising, created this situation, and it would inescapably have created it because of its financing model. It needs to die. And of course the two most powerful advertising corporations of the world, Alphabet and Facebook, want this situation to continue.

With net neutrality in place they can get richer anyway, they just have to put in a bit more effort instead of just throwing money at the problem.

No, you are wrong, or at least I believe you are. With net neutrality they had to put in less effort to create this distopia dressed up as utopia. Users were a resource to be mined, not customers to be satisfied. If the internet is to be a commercial operation, then a different financing system, where financing for internet content is paid for by users, not advertisers, is necessary to change this sorry situation. Me, I would rather not have many things done now as commercial operations be non-commercial (andnthat is possible, I recall it happening), but one fight each day.

My point in this discussion is: "net neutrality" is not something positive, contrary to what is being advertised. It has upsides and downsides to different commercial interests exploiting the internet. It won't, cannot, fix what is wrong with it - because there are a lot of things wrong already! Be aware of that[/QUOTE]

 

[warpus]

My point in this discussion is: "net neutrality" is not something positive, contrary to what is being advertised.

You seem pretty disillusioned and cynical about all of this. That's fine, but I see no reason to lock down the internet and give even more power to those who already have power.

At this stage the internet is pretty much a utility, and it should be treated as such.

 

[innonimatu]

I am disillusioned.

When things are already not working, sometimes it is worth the risk of trying something different. It can turn out to be worse, but maybe, just maybe, it will improve on things. Not completely cynical yet.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How is the current situation not working?

And how is rolling back net neutrality going to stop advertising?

 

[Evie]

Trying something different is one thing. Trying something different that can in no reasonable or rational way improve the situation is another.

 

[Synobun]

Trying something different is one thing. Trying something different that can in no reasonable or rational way improve the situation is another.

I'm not content with the garden I'm growing. Perhaps setting it on fire will be the change I need.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hyperbole aside, every analysis of the proposal is pretty dire. Or maybe I'm too deep in my own bubble. I appreciate reading @innonimatu 's take on this but I find it baffling.