Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[Commodore]

I've been seeing some people make the argument that ending net neutrality would be a violation of 1st Amendment rights in the US. The argument is that the internet is effectively a public space and to limit access to it in any way violates the peoples' right to peaceably assemble and express their ideas.

I've also seen that consumer advocacy groups are already preparing to challenge this in court if it goes through under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Administrative Procedure Act bars federal agencies from making "arbitrary and capricious" decisions in order to prevent constant flip-flopping in policy every time a new administration takes power. Since the ruling to uphold net neutrality is barely a year old, these consumer advocacy groups are going to argue that any decision to repeal net neutrality regulations would certainly fall under the definition of "arbitrary and capricious". If successful that could buy us at least a few more years of net neutrality. Maybe even allow us to hold on until Trump gets the boot and a more net neutrality-friendly administration can take office.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes this is the outcome I am hoping for.

 

[innonimatu]

How is the current situation not working?

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

Look at the current structure of the market for advertisement. It's controlled by a duopoly. And advertisement pays for most of the "free" content in the internet, meaning that these two corporations (Facebook and Alphabet) are the gatekeepers on information. Not on what gets published or not published, but on what is disseminated and actually reaches a sizable number of people. To anyone who regarded the internet as a tool for social discussion and participation, this is not working.

Then look at the structure of sales on the internet. It's even worse, there is one company (Amazon) making a successful grab at becoming a monopoly. Not the ultimate producer, but the gatekeeper on internet sales, the platform where all sellers and buyers meet. If they want to shut someone out, what recourse will those people or businesses hare? If they want to squeeze someone, what negotiating power will that someone have?This is working for whom?

Concentration of power is by far the most dangerous thing. Giving more power to ISP, of which there mus be thousands currently, may at least weaken the stranglehold of these corporations. It's not a good solution, not the one I'd prefet. But it is getting the management of those corporations worried, and I'm sure they are at least busy thinking about how to address the threat.

 

[Evie]

One, there aren't "thousands" of ISPs ; at least not at the local level which is the one that matters (since you can't contract with an ISP that doesn't serve your area). At the local level, ISPs in many areas are every inch as much a monopoly/duopoly as Amazon or Facebook/Alphabet. That they're not so *globally* is utterly meaningless for end-users.

Two. "diluting the power" as an argument...doesn't work, at least not from the perspective of the end user. Because you aren't diluting their power to affect end users - Google/Facebook's ability to prevent content from being disseminated remain wholly intact. If they don't want you to see something, they still have exactly as much power as ever to hide it from you. Likewise Amazon. You're just adding even more people with the power to prevent you from seeing content they don't want you to see. Now instead of being unable to find or encounter what Alphabet/Facebook don't want you to see, you still won't be able to see those things, but on top of that you won't be able to see all the other things the ISPs don't want you to say.

Sure, it might sometime mildly inconvenience, say, Alphabet when they have to pay for faster access to ISPs (anyone doubt they would?), or when a site that they think should be disseminated end up blocked by this or that ISP, but that's all it would be. A mild annoyance. For the end user, on the other hand, it's an ever-growing list of things they have to pay extra, or search extra to see ; or outright things they can't see at all.

Your theory is based on a very flawed perception of the internet.

 

[innonimatu]

If this change leads to different models of paying for content, then the monopoly power of those two corporations is undermined. Their advertising market, therefore their profits and their political power, is reduced. I'm not just looking at the possibility of Alphabet paying to each ISP, I'm looking at the possible effects of ISP costumers paying for access to services online, and other companies coming forward to sell those. Where they are the costumers of those online services rather than the product. Sure the incumbents have a starting advantage, but that can be curbed by governments (several none too happy now). It's not a good solution, I know. But it'd be an improvement. Perhaps that is too much to hope for.

There is one perception of the internet that needs changing: it should be "free" and paid for by advertising. But it can't change unless there are structures in place for different financing methods. I don't know what those will be, but I do know that these which exist now must go to make room for something different.

 

[uppi]

In your model, you would have your ISP as the single gatekeeper to all content. How would that be any better than the current situation? Right now, there is no one forcing you to use Google or Facebook, you could use any of the alternatives (even if the service might be not as good) and you could switch right now. But if your ISP decides that you are not supposed to see something, switching is a hassle in the best case and impossible in the worst.

But even if you would still want such a model, there is no one stopping the ISPs to act as an intermediary between customers and content providers right now - in some cases they already try to do exactly that. I don't see how ending net neutrality will bring any benefit except for the ISP. It might even lead to further centralization, because Alphabet and Facebook will get some kind of deal with every relevant ISP. A smaller company trying to compete with them might not have the resources and negotiation power to get the same deals.

 

[Silurian]

One, there aren't "thousands" of ISPs ; at least not at the local level which is the one that matters (since you can't contract with an ISP that doesn't serve your area). At the local level, ISPs in many areas are every inch as much a monopoly/duopoly as Amazon or Facebook/Alphabet. That they're not so *globally* is utterly meaningless for end-users..

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

After I posted this it went up to six ISP
Maybe a regulated market economy is better

 

[Evie]

Inonimatu :

The money from net neutrality ending does not contribute to "paying" for the internet. Websites still need to pay for their hosting and bandwidth, and still need to pay for any professional services they might need (server maintenance, etc), and still need to pay or offer incentive to content creator, and ending net neutrality gives them precisely zero mean to do so. In fact, ending net neutrality probably add to those costs, so those websites need advertising even more, so in the short term at least, Alphabet and Facebook become even more powerful. While this may eventually lead to some of them trying to make up some of their costs by non-advertising means (crowd funding, membership fees, etc), their ability to do so is,frankly, limited. On the one hand, there's the fact that the users are already paying their ISP's base fees, plus probably special access fees, so how much more they might be wililng to pay for your content...well, questionable. On the other hand, there's the fact that website competition is much easier than internet competition, so while the ISP is unlikely to have competitors forcing him to lower their access fees, you are likely to get outcompeted very quickly on your own access fees.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the problem ; you aren't. But your belief that ending net neutrality lead to solving the problem is wishful thinking. What we need is an actual solution, not "Let the world burn and hope someone come up with something better".

Silurian:

A)In many areas. You don't live in one of those, good for you. It does not invalidate the fact that many, many others DO live in such areas.

B)Yes, regulated markets help. Here, there are essentially two ISPs who can actually provide the internet infrastructure. The only reason we get more actual ISPs is because government regulation forces those big players to let smaller local ISP piggyback on the big guys' network (I believe the idea is that they buy bandwidth at bulk mega-corporate prices, then turn around and resell to private end users at competitive prices ; government regulation prevent the big ISPs from barring that practice). Of course, we also have net neutrality and no plans to end it. That's kind of the thing here : if you regulate the market enough to make sure the market isn't a monopoly/duopoly, you also probably regulate the market enough that your government is likely to continue demanding net neutrality from the selfsame ISPs.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ajit Pai is making an address at a Verizon conference soon.

I guess he has to check in with the bosses every once in a while.

 

[Commodore]

Ajit Pai is making an address at a Verizon conference soon.

I guess he has to check in with the bosses every once in a while.

What really gets me about Pai, is even though it was Trump that put him in charge, it was Obama who first appointed this ugly little twerp to the FCC in the first place. What was Obama thinking?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't know the specifics but it was probably the same reason he hired Flynn - on paper he was an ideal candidate and Obama wasn't above hiring competent Republicans.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Look at the current structure of the market for advertisement. It's controlled by a duopoly. And advertisement pays for most of the "free" content in the internet, meaning that these two corporations (Facebook and Alphabet) are the gatekeepers on information. Not on what gets published or not published, but on what is disseminated and actually reaches a sizable number of people. To anyone who regarded the internet as a tool for social discussion and participation, this is not working.

Then look at the structure of sales on the internet. It's even worse, there is one company (Amazon) making a successful grab at becoming a monopoly. Not the ultimate producer, but the gatekeeper on internet sales, the platform where all sellers and buyers meet. If they want to shut someone out, what recourse will those people or businesses hare? If they want to squeeze someone, what negotiating power will that someone have?This is working for whom?

Concentration of power is by far the most dangerous thing. Giving more power to ISP, of which there mus be thousands currently, may at least weaken the stranglehold of these corporations. It's not a good solution, not the one I'd prefet. But it is getting the management of those corporations worried, and I'm sure they are at least busy thinking about how to address the threat.

ISPs are not the answer to this. You don't hand more power to trash, and in the US, ISPs are frequently trash. Even reasonably urban areas get locked down on one provider (unless you want to use untenable satellite), and you're stuck working with that one provider. If they partition your service and charge for each piece, you have no recourse or competitor to threaten a switch. There's no real competition. This is not the situation to pursue as a solution, not even a temporary one.

 

[Commodore]

Just read that Ajit Pai and his family have received 3.2 million death threats over this issue. His personal home address has also been made public and is being spread around. You'd think with that kind of heat, this fool would drop the issue. Because while I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those 3.2 million death threats are empty threats, you can never be sure just how far someone will go to get what they want.

 

[Commodore]

Well, as expected, the FCC has completely ignored the will of the people. The legal challenges to the repeal have already begun. Let's hope the judges haven't abandoned us completely yet. Of course even if a judge rules against the repeal, I have a sinking feeling this is going to end up in the Supreme Court and they will side with the FCC and the corporations on this one.

Another faint glimmer of hope here is a poll shows 75% of Republican voters support net neutrality and Republicans in Congress have taken notice and have started speaking out against this repeal. Hopefully this can lead to bipartisan legislation that officially makes net neutrality part of US law. If that happens, then the FCC can't do anything about it. Of course, even if Congress passed such a law, that senile tangerine in the White House would probably veto it, being the biggest corporate shill of them all.

 

[Angst]

So disappointed in the States government right now.

 

[Commodore]

So disappointed in the States government right now.

It's not our entire government. It's one rogue agency run by corporate shills, backed by another corporate shill in the White House. Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were putting extreme pressure on the FCC to not repeal net neutrality regulations and Ajit Pai just flat ignored them. He also ignored the millions of voters who voiced their opposition to the repeal.

I'm hoping if Congress fails to act and the legal challenges fail, we'll only have to suffer through this until 2020 when Trump is soundly defeated and the new president appoints a new head of the FCC that will reinstate the net neutrality regulations.

EDIT: There's also word that several state governments are preparing legislation at the state level that protects net neutrality.

 

[Angst]

Look, that's all very reasonable counterpoints, and I trust in the premises, you're making complete sense.

But I've seen it before. All these reasonable, rational premises to be drowned by a raging reality.

I want to trust you because everything you say is making sense. But how can I trust that at this point?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This administration will be the prime example of regulatory capture in Econ 101 textbooks going forward.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Coming soon, the Internet packaged like T.V., all sites categorized into different packages that can be sold like TV! Giving consumers the choice to see "Sorry, if you want to visit this site, contact your service provider to upgrade your plan. Package deals avalible!"

 

[Commodore]

Look, that's all very reasonable counterpoints, and I trust in the premises, you're making complete sense.

But I've seen it before. All these reasonable, rational premises to be drowned by a raging reality.

I want to trust you because everything you say is making sense. But how can I trust that at this point?

I don't disagree with you. I too fear that we've reached a point where the government simply cannot stop the corporate takeover of the US. I'm just in a mindset where I'm hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

This administration will be the prime example of regulatory capture in Econ 101 textbooks going forward.

Indeed. What really kills me is there are unconfirmed rumors that Pai has been offered a high-paying consulting job with Verizon once his time at the FCC is up. The sad thing is, even if it is confirmed, there's not really anything illegal about that, despite the obvious conflict of interests.

So much for "draining the swamp."

Coming soon, the Internet packaged like T.V., all sites categorized into different packages that can be sold like TV! Giving consumers the choice to see "Sorry, if you want to visit this site, contact your service provider to upgrade your plan. Package deals avalible!"

Exactly. And to anyone who thinks this is just a hypothetical doom and gloom scenario, I direct you to Mexico's internet service providers. They have never had net neutrality and tiered internet access packages similar to cable TV packages have been the norm there for years now and it keeps internet access from being accessible and affordable to large swathes of the Mexican population.