Is global net neutrality NOW really at risk ?

[hobbsyoyo]

I have a strong feeling that the Trump presidency is going to precipitate a sweeping SCOTUS ruling on due process in the administrative rulemaking process, possibly in connection with this very repeal which will almost certainly be blocked in at least one federal court. The process has been thoroughly corrupted and the administration has made no effort to protect or repair its broken integrity. Stay tuned.

Which leaves open the possibility of a far-reaching, hyper-disruptive ruling a la Citizens United.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I just learned that the city of Chatanooga was so fed up with crappy ISP service that they kicked them all out and started their own government-run internet service. The Republican legislature was quick to subvert the will of the people and moved to prevent all other cities in the state from following suite. Not shady at all. The Republicans don't work for corporations, why would anyone suggest that?

 

[Commodore]

The most we can hope for is the courts to stall this out for a year and then the new Congress might be able to overturn it altogether with new laws. But I think that route (which is distinct from regulatory oversight/repeal) would require 60 votes in the Senate. I don't think the Democrats will get that in 2018.

Yeah, this is going to be tied up in the courts for a while. Not only are a whole mess of consumer advocacy groups challenging this in court, but a coalition of state governments is also forming to challenge this repeal. And if there's one thing governments know how to do, it's drag out legal proceedings for as long as they want.

Some more good news: A bill has been proposed in Congress that would make it illegal for ISPs to block or throttle content. So while this proposed bill doesn't do away with what the FCC did, it would prevent ISPs from taking advantage of the net neutrality repeal, so it effectively achieves the same goal.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well there is also the issue that ISPs can now legally sell your browsing habits. Does this bill cover that too?

And I do not expect the bill to pass in any case.

 

[Lexicus]

Some more good news: A bill has been proposed in Congress that would make it illegal for ISPs to block or throttle content. So while this proposed bill doesn't do away with what the FCC did, it would prevent ISPs from taking advantage of the net neutrality repeal, so it effectively achieves the same goal.

It would prevent them from taking advantage of it in certain ways. I have no doubt they can find ways around that - for example, offering faster content at a higher cost, which would obviously be the same as throttling people who can't or don't want to pay the higher cost, but I bet they'd get away with it.

 

[metalhead]

They already do that though. The most basic Internet packages don't provide one with enough bandwidth to stream HD content. You can probably stream in SD with the bandwidth provided in such a basic package, but not if you're doing anything else on your network at the time.

I don't think it's really going to matter that much in the long run. A couple more generations of wireless networks and we'll be done getting Internet through wires anyways. Don't get me wrong, I think the loss of Net Neutrality is a huge deal, but it's not the endgame regulatory battle.

 

[Lexicus]

They already do that though. The most basic Internet packages don't provide one with enough bandwidth to stream HD content. You can probably stream in SD with the bandwidth provided in such a basic package, but not if you're doing anything else on your network at the time.

Yeah, but now it can be done more granularly than just a general internet connection package.

I don't think it's really going to matter that much in the long run. A couple more generations of wireless networks and we'll be done getting Internet through wires anyways.

Does that change the questions here though? Aren't ISPs still going to exercise similar control over the wireless infrastructure?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The answer to that last question is of course.

 

[metalhead]

My understanding is that wireless carriers operate under utility rules, and are therefore required to grant other carriers access to their infrastructure. Otherwise Cricket and Boost wouldn't exist. I don't think Net Neutrality repeal affected that.

Which isn't to say that can't all change. And this repeal will no doubt be a catalyst for wireless carriers to kick up a fuss.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Allowing other carriers to use their infrastructure is not the same as disallowing throttling or excessive fees. Mobile carriers are already allowed to throttle consumers using various mechanisms. Most of them relate to slowing the speed of someone who goes above a bandwidth cap but others are backdoor prioritization. T-Mobile had a scheme (I think it was shut down but I'm not sure) to prioritize Netflix traffic on their network which has the effect of throttling everything else.

 

[metalhead]

Right, but it is crucial to allowing market forces (which sometimes actually do work!) to keep them from actually doing so. The reason repealing Net Neutrality is so odious is because people will be completely at the mercy of their ISP. Wired ISP infrastructure is extremely costly to build so most places are only wired by one provider. If they can restrict access or inflate costs for competing providers to use their infrastructure, they can basically monopolize wired Internet access anywhere they have exclusive control of the infrastructure.

Whereas with wireless carriers, if they are not allowed to limit access or inflate the cost of leased bandwidth, will be undercut by providers who offer cheaper, unrestricted access.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Services that sublet wireless infrastructure are bound by bandwidth limitations imposed by the major carriers. While I agree that free market solutions can work in some instances, this isn't one of them. And it shouldn't be an area where we give a supposed free market free reign anyways, the internet is a utility.

 

[metalhead]

It should all be publicly owned in my opinion, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

They are bound by bandwidth restrictions, but that is largely a function of the fact that bandwidth is still finite. Give it another few years, and that will likely no longer be the case. That's why it's so important that legislators and regulators get out ahead of it, and ensure that bandwidth restrictions aren't allowed to continue after technology eliminates any reason for having them.

Wireless carriers have never had regulation-imposed neutrality, and the market has actually functioned to eliminate the threats posed by not having it because the market is properly regulated in other respects that largely eliminate the threats that come from not having neutrality imposed. It's not really a "free" market, which is why it actually functions in a way that is relatively beneficial for the public. It's not perfect, and if the Trumpists have anything to say about it, it will probably be deregulated and destroyed. But it works pretty well all things considered.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Wow you put a lot of faith in the notion that technological gains (i.e. an end to limitations on bandwidth) won't be twisted to serve corporate interests.

For all intents and purposes at the individual level we have limitless electricity yet we still have to regulate it and treat it as a utility to prevent consumer abuse. Even this is under attack as governments move to prevent people from using solar power to protect power generation companies.

 

[metalhead]

Wow you put a lot of faith in the notion that technological gains (i.e. an end to limitations on bandwidth) won't be twisted to serve corporate interests.

I don't have faith in this at all, which is why I said that the real regulatory fight isn't over Net Neutrality, it's what to do with wireless carriers and their infrastructure once they render wired ISPs obsolete. In the grand scheme of things, Net Neutrality repeal is pretty small potatoes. It is, however, a flashing red sign as to what the Trumpists will do if given free hand to craft future legislation and regulations over Internet access once this comes to pass.

 

[Oerdin]

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/

I believe the UK requires ISPs to sell bandwidth to resellers as a way to increase competition. In the US the lobbyists own the politicians so reselling is usually not allowed or at least left up to ISPs who own the wires. Naturally, they decide they prefer there not to be competition. Reselling does happen on cellphone networks and in that industry competition from resellers has caused prices to go down considerably.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't have faith in this at all, which is why I said that the real regulatory fight isn't over Net Neutrality, it's what to do with wireless carriers and their infrastructure once they render wired ISPs obsolete. In the grand scheme of things, Net Neutrality repeal is pretty small potatoes. It is, however, a flashing red sign as to what the Trumpists will do if given free hand to craft future legislation and regulations over Internet access once this comes to pass.

I do not think wireless will ever render wired connections obsolete due to volume and interference issues.

While much has been made of the gains of wireless networks in places without wired infrastructure (in say, all of Africa), the scales are dramatically different. I wouldn't be surprised if the traffic on that entire continent was lower than just California's.

What this means is that as Africa continues to develop, they will end up with a wired infrastructure a lot like the one in North America. It will be more wireless centric, for sure, but backhaul wired connections are massively important. At a certain point there is not enough spectrum to go around. We are already seeing in the US fights over spectrum as it is just to keep up with demand.

Compression techniques and it other ways to squeeze more bandwidth out of the spectrum will alleviate some of these problems but not to the extent that wireless renders wired obsolete. Especially so in places like the US where a lot of the wired infrastructure is already in place.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Of course I should make an allowance for unforeseen breakthroughs that change the infrastructure situation.

 

[metalhead]

Well, I think a lot of commercial operations will rely on wired connections for a long time, for the reasons you state (and for the additional reason of security). And certainly a lot of local and switching and transmission infrastructure will always be wired. I was thinking more on the personal consumer side, because once wired infrastructure is relegated to non-consumer uses, the fights over it will be far less nasty and easier to regulate.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What I'm saying is that even in the consumer side, wired networks will form the back bone of the wireless infrastructure. We will never be able to server the two in any meaningful way barring some next gen developments that no one can conceive of at the moment.