Net Neutrality debate is back

[civvver]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/r...o-delay-net-neutrality-vote-release-proposal/

So uh apparently the fcc is going to vote on a 300+ page document of regulations pretty soon that will affect all internet in the US. I cannot figure out what this means and need my fellow forum goers to explain it to me.

If you read this http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now and this http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality it sounds amazing. But we know with government regulations that's often not the case.

Many commentators are worried about taxes. I feel like this *might* all be a ruse so that the government can open up the internet for taxation. Internet is already way too expensive for what we get and some are saying under these new regulations the prices might triple. Some say this will kill carrier competition. But on the other hand there's only two options for internet in my area right now anyway, so how is that competition? It's either AT&T phone line or cable and only one cable choice.

I really don't know where I stand or what all this means. I just know once they rammed through all the health care regulation changes my employer sponsored health care premiums went from $0 a month to $300 a month. Please tell me I can expect different once government takes over the net!

 

[Sommerswerd]

I like/support President Obama, however my initial reaction is to be suspicious of this. I mean I am very skeptical that the point of this is (as the site says) because "access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money."

... Really?

I guess if Comcast are intentionally slowing down the poor kids blog to extort money out of him than that's worth some scrutiny. But if the idea is that companies shouldn't be able to buy more of the limited available bandwith to speed their sites up for their customers... I am a little more suspicious of that. Anyway I am interested to see if anyone here has comments because we all (presumably) are big internet/computer users.

 

[kramerfan86]

Id rather have a taxed internet than an internet I pay gobs of cash for and parts of it dont work. Overall I am cautiously supportive of this simply because the alternative is far more horrifying.

 

[Kozmos]

I like/support President Obama, however my initial reaction is to be suspicious of this. I mean I am very skeptical that the point of this is (as the site says) because "access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money."

... Really?

I guess if Comcast are intentionally slowing down the poor kids blog to extort money out of him than that's worth some scrutiny. But if the idea is that companies shouldn't be able to buy more the limited available bandwith to speed their sites up for their customers... I am a little more suspicious of that. Anyway I am interested to see if anyone here has comments because we all (presumably) are big internet/computer users.

It gives more power to already established companies and makes competing against them harder. It's not hard to see why this is important.

 

[kramerfan86]

Yup, something like facebook might next exist because myspace paid up for speed and facebook was throttled down before it could afford speed. Internet would go from a land of innovation to a land of the perpetual same faces while everyone else choked off because your site can be as clever or creative as you want, but no one wants to deal with slow speeds when the inferior site is at least fast.

 

[IglooDame]

Yup, something like facebook might next exist because myspace paid up for speed and facebook was throttled down before it could afford speed. Internet would go from a land of innovation to a land of the perpetual same faces while everyone else choked off because your site can be as clever or creative as you want, but no one wants to deal with slow speeds when the inferior site is at least fast.

You shouldn't say "facebook might not exist" without context - my immediate reaction would be "No facebook? I'm for that!!" You should say "myspace would still have 90% of social media users, even though facebook obviously isn't quite as bad".

 

[warpus]

But if the idea is that companies shouldn't be able to buy more of the limited available bandwith to speed their sites up for their customers... I am a little more suspicious of that.

The concept of net neutrality means that ISPs have to treat everything that's going through their pipes equally - whether it's somebody watching a youtube video, http requests for a small personal site, facebook, twitter, or whatever.

With net neutrality gone, providers would be able to reserve "fast lanes" for companies who are willing to shell out extra cash for that privilege.

Net neutrality is very important to the internet as it exists now - it allows Joe Blow from wherever to open a website and build up a viable business from scratch, competing with the big boys, if he so chooses. With net neutrality gone, such a thing would be much much harder to accomplish - unless you have money. New startups would be not nearly as common as they are now - and innovation would suffer.

 

[civvver]

It's really coming because last summer comcast or verizon held netflix's feet to the fire and said hey your site is using up 90% of our bandwidth, pay us or we're going to throttle you. So netflix paid them off.

Now in that case it *kinda* makes sense. Netflix is using all of comcast's bandwidth and other sites suffer as a result right? So they should be able to pay for extra bandwidth. What if comcast says ok everyone's getting the same crappy bandwidth, then netflxi doesn't work at all. That's what I'm scared of. If they can't throttle and make certain sites faster then every site will just be slow.

The other case I've heard of is hbo wants to provide an independant streaming service and allow you to subscribe to hbo go without having cable. Comcast said f' that, if you do that we will make it so no one can visit your site it'll be so slow. So they're extorting hbo to still require cable subs to sell more comcast cable packages. In that case that's the big guy pushing around the little guy here.

The theory should be the physical cables are like essential pipelines and become utilities. And anyone can provide the water that traverses them and there should be competition. Right now your cable company has exclusivity on those lines. And I don't like that cus there's no competition and they can do crap to content providers they shouldn't be able to do.

But again, I still worry about over regulation hurting speeds in general and raising prices.

 

[Sommerswerd]

last summer comcast or verizon held netflix's feet to the fire ...

hbo wants to provide an independant streaming ... Comcast said f' that

This was my point... Comcast v. Netflix, Netflix v. Verizon, HBO v. Comcast. Where is the "little guy" in all of that?

The point of this net-neutrality stuff seems like its just corporate titans fighting over who has to pay the bill (or not pay the bill). Its irrelevant because either way we the consumer are gonna' end up paying. I mean they (the government) try to get us all worked up based on claiming that its to "protect small businesses and startups and girl scouts" and other such nonsense, when its really just a law that the lobbyists are pushing so that Verizon can't raise Netflix's bill... Or so HBO can cut in on Comcast's action.

Whatever

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's really coming because last summer comcast or verizon held netflix's feet to the fire and said hey your site is using up 90% of our bandwidth, pay us or we're going to throttle you. So netflix paid them off.

Now in that case it *kinda* makes sense. Netflix is using all of comcast's bandwidth and other sites suffer as a result right? So they should be able to pay for extra bandwidth. What if comcast says ok everyone's getting the same crappy bandwidth, then netflxi doesn't work at all. That's what I'm scared of. If they can't throttle and make certain sites faster then every site will just be slow.

The other case I've heard of is hbo wants to provide an independant streaming service and allow you to subscribe to hbo go without having cable. Comcast said f' that, if you do that we will make it so no one can visit your site it'll be so slow. So they're extorting hbo to still require cable subs to sell more comcast cable packages. In that case that's the big guy pushing around the little guy here.

The theory should be the physical cables are like essential pipelines and become utilities. And anyone can provide the water that traverses them and there should be competition. Right now your cable company has exclusivity on those lines. And I don't like that cus there's no competition and they can do crap to content providers they shouldn't be able to do.

But again, I still worry about over regulation hurting speeds in general and raising prices.

I get my phone, TV, and internet from Telus. I got an email yesterday that said Telus plans to offer its Optik subscribers (of which I'm one) the chance to watch Netflix on our TVs as well as online (this would, of course, count toward our monthly data allowances). When I tried to find out more information, I just got a "sorry this isn't available for your region yet" message.

At present, I watch most TV shows online, whether on YouTube, Netflix, or other sites. The only stuff I watch on TV itself are my soap (occasionally), Downton Abbey (every week because it's not on Netflix yet), and the reality shows (because Global and CTV websites are aggravating, to put it mildly).

So I'm wondering why Telus is offering us the opportunity to watch Netflix content on our TV sets. Are they planning on making us watch ads to get it? I have no idea if Netflix Canada has ads, since I don't see ads on most webpages I visit. Or maybe it's to lure people into going over their data caps, since they're changing that next month.

 

[warpus]

The point of this net-neutrality stuff seems like its just corporate titans fighting over who has to pay the bill (or not pay the bill). Its irrelevant because either way we the consumer are gonna' end up paying.

If net neutrality is abandoned, the "little guy" will have a much harder time starting a business online and competing with existing behemoths. A facebook wouldn't have been possible without net neutrality, as well as a plethora of other startups.

 

[Sommerswerd]

facebook wouldn't have been possible without net neutrality

Wait, so facebook already exists... So are you saying that net-neutrality is the current status quo? So what is the debate about? What is the President advocating if we already have net neutrality? (I know im being lazy asking to be spoon fed this stuff instead of going and researching it myself.)

Are you saying that Comcast is trying to get rid of net neutrality and Netflix is heroically fighting to keep the internet safe from Comcast's evil attempt to make Netflix pay more for their Netflix-users hogging all the bandwith?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Wait, so facebook already exists... So are you saying that net-neutrality is the current status quo? So what is the debate about? What is the President advocating if we already have net neutrality? (I know im being lazy asking to be spoon fed this stuff instead of going and researching it myself.)

Are you saying that Comcast is trying to get rid of net neutrality and Netflix is heroically fighting to keep the internet safe from Comcast's evil attempt to make Netflix pay more for their Netflix-users hogging all the bandwith?

He doesn't mean that facebook qua facebook wouldn't exist. Likewise for Netflix. What he means is that companies like facebook and netflix - small garage startups - would not be allowed to exist. If net neutrality hadn't existed 10 years ago myspace would have seen facebook coming up to challenge their dominance of the social media sphere and bought/bribed the isp's into putting myspace on the fast track and facebook into bandwidth hell. Likewise, perhaps even more probably than the facebook example, netflix would have almost immediately got shut down, whether by blockbuster or by cbs/nbc/FOX/etc. when they launched Hulu.

Now there are a couple of things wrong with this concept. The most pressing, obviously, is that the internet is increasingly being a necessity to everyday life as pressing as water and electricity. The vast majority of jobs these days - particularly entry-level and big box store jobs require online applications to the point where they don't even accept paper applications anymore. In this day and age you do not get a job without the internet. Now imagine a world without net neutrality. You want to go work at Target, but Target didn't pay for the fast lane internet. Sorry you cannot work at Target. Wal-Mart did though so that's your only option. This is hyperbolized, obviously, but this is the sort of thing we're talking about.

The other, more pressing issue is with how internet is dealt with in America. Internet is not (at present) a utility as it is in Europe. In Europe, as far as I'm aware, internet infrastructure is treated more or less as a state-run and operated utility that any company with a couple of servers is free to piggy back on. This means ISP competition is high. Net Neutrality is still valuable because it encourages the sort of innovative ideas that twitter or netflix bring, but an end to net neutrality in Europe would be less crippling than it would be here. Here we exist in a world of quasi-monopoly. ISPs sign exclusive deals with cities in which they put in the infrastructure, they run the show, and nobody else gets to come in. Where I live Charter is our only ISP option. 2 blocks from my house you get a choice between Charter and Verizon. And 2 blocks from that it's just Verizon.

Now I imagine you've been to fast food places, right? You've doubtless noticed that different fast food places carry different sets of soda. You either have the "pepsi set" of Pepsi, A&W, Dr. Pepper, etc. Or you have the "coke set" of Coca Cola, Barq's, etc. These restaurants, or their larger conglomerates make exclusivity deals with soda companies. They will only sell that set of soda in their stores. You never have coke and pepsi in the same fountain. This is ok for us because the restaurants are usually pretty well distributed. If you are a normal person like me, you realize that pepsi is awful and undrinkable, so if you're in, say, a Taco Bell but really REALLY want a coke you can just cross the street and walk over to the McDonalds and buy yourself a coke. This cannot happen with ISPs. In a world where we don't have Net Neutrality the concern isn't how Netflix will be impacted, but how Netflix's choices will impact us. In a world without Net Neutrality perhaps Netflix signs an exclusivity deal with Time Warner Cable. Hulu signs with Comcast, and Amazon signs with Charter. In a net neutrality world you are free to pick and choose which streaming services (or all of them) you prefer. Netflix has shows you want while Amazon does not so you subscribe to Netflix. Only now that doesn't happen. You are stuck with the preferred streaming service of your ISP. And you are stuck with your ISP unless you move. This also opens companies like Netflix and Amazon to price gouging as they effectively are no longer in direct competition with one another.

That, among other things, is why ending Net Neutrality is so scary. ISPs are arguing for the right to extort money from whomever they want whenever they want. And that extortion would be consequence free because they already effectively hold a collective of regional monopolies/oligopolies.

 

[jackelgull]

I can't really say more than people have already said, but John Oliver does have an episode on this.


Link to video.

Maybe that helps?

 

[Tahuti]

Internet is not (at present) a utility as it is in Europe. In Europe, as far as I'm aware, internet infrastructure is treated more or less as a state-run and operated utility that any company with a couple of servers is free to piggy back on. This means ISP competition is high. Net Neutrality is still valuable because it encourages the sort of innovative ideas that twitter or netflix bring, but an end to net neutrality in Europe would be less crippling than it would be here. Here we exist in a world of quasi-monopoly. ISPs sign exclusive deals with cities in which they put in the infrastructure, they run the show, and nobody else gets to come in. Where I live Charter is our only ISP option. 2 blocks from my house you get a choice between Charter and Verizon. And 2 blocks from that it's just Verizon.

That is only true for Finland and a couple of other countries. The Netherlands is possibly more laissez-faire than the US when it comes to internet infrastructure. If you live in a small village, or even a medium-sized town, chances are you will be shorn off from the fiber access if no ISP ever made a deal with the respective municipality. Even cities close to approaching 200.000 inhabitants may not possess internet with speeds over 50MB because the ISP's and/or municipal government doesn't mind lacking it.

 

[civvver]

What owen glynder is saying is exactly why net neutrality is being passed but I am skeptical of the end result. We don't have access to the full regulations right now.

But I have heard from some people that it is not going to make the physical lines public use like phone lines. Thus comcast and verzion and att can still have a monopoly on service and charge consumers whatever they want. Ok so they can't throttle netflix and blackmail them, but they can say well, we lost that sweet netflix revenue, let's up everyone's internet rates 10% to cover it. That will probably still be possible.

There might be some regulation over the max they can charge like there is for gas and sewer companies but who knows? The communication company lobbies are so strong.

It's just my gut feeling that this won't change anything, that all costs will still be transferred to the consumers, the communication companies will still make tons of money off us, internet will still be ridiculously expensive for what it is. The only thing that will change is now there's a $4 regulatory fee on your internet bill just like there is on your phone bill. Can you image how much revenue that is for the government? $4 per internet using household? That's a ton of cash. This might just be a cash grab in the name on consumer protection. I'm very, very skeptical.

Just like with obamacare. Everyone cheered cus hey new obamacare regulations mean insurance companies can't screw you with prexisiting conditions and lifetime maximums! which were awesome and needed changes. But the companies just say, well screw you consumer we'll just jack prices up again to cover this crap we have to do now. And that's exactly what happened. Prices still went up, medical coverage is ridiculously expensive, insurance companies still make bank. Consumer still screwed.

 

[onejayhawk]

It appears to be a large tax increase under another name. Several $Billion of user fees would be generated. I do not see a comparable service.

J

 

[Kaitzilla]

I've heard so many horror stories about Comcast over the years that I've started using comcastic as an adjective.


Here's a few Comcast posts floating around Civ Fanatics.
1) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13389583&postcount=362
2) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13334447&postcount=290
3) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13631125&postcount=713
4) THREAD: "Oh Comcast, how low can you go?" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=542641&highlight=comcast
5) THREAD: "Cancel Comcast and they'll cancel your job!" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=535212&highlight=comcast
6) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13366905&postcount=192
7) THREAD: "FCC flips off entire Web; wants to end net neutrality." - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=525037&highlight=comcast
8) http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13112126&postcount=613
9) THREAD: "Net neutrality, Roaming: Though struggling in the US, at least winning in the EU!" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=523781&highlight=comcast
10) THREAD: "Merge of the Titans" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=520972&highlight=comcast
11) THREAD: "Net Neutrality Dead in the US" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=519530&highlight=comcast
12) THREAD: "ISP Monopolies" - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11191030&highlight=comcast#post11191030


Comcast recently got sued for $20 billion over racial discrimination.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comcast-al-sharpton-hit-20-777015

Even though the FCC hasn't yet ruled on the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable, one group has already filed a lawsuit claiming at least $20 billion in damages from the way the two giants allegedly discriminate against black-owned media.

The complaint, filed in California on Friday, comes from the National Association of African-American Owned Media, which also filed a similar suit against AT&T and DirecTV in December.

This time, the plaintiff is not only targeting both Comcast and TWC — on the eve of the two companies merging to become what would be the largest pay television distributor in the United States — but also various African-American advocacy groups and MSNBC host Al Sharpton for allegedly facilitating discrimination.

Comcast's Chief Diversity Officer will get right on top of that I'm sure.
http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-corporations-chief-diversity-officer


Here's some stuff speaking out against Net Neutrality.
http://kauffj.liberty.me/2015/02/04/the-case-against-net-neutrality/

This one tugs on the heart strings more.
http://hyperborean.liberty.me/2015/02/17/why-in-the-midst-of-success-ive-decided-to-leave-the-us/

Why in the midst of success, I’m preparing to leave the US.

By Travis from Hyperborean.io link Feb 17, 2015


This was a difficult post to write, as I prefer the message of optimism. However, I think it’s an important one for the liberty-minded entrepreneurs out there, and it really shows the lateness of the hour in the US.

After much soul-searching and deliberation, I’ve decided it’s time to go. This is not an easy decision for me…I live in the closest thing to a real Gulch I know, have built a successful business, have friends and family, and many deep roots here. However, my business is now facing two government actions which show me that it’s time to take action of my own.

Some here know my story, but for those who don’t, a brief history. 6 years ago, two friends and I saw a problem – lack of broadband access in our rural Oregon county – and we knew it was a business opportunity. We pooled a few thousand dollars of savings and started building our own ISP from scratch, using the just-released AirMAX equipment from Ubiquiti.

Slowly and steadily, powered by income from satisfied customers, we’ve grown over the years. We now cover over 500 square miles of rural Oregon with real broadband speed, up to 26Mbps, which beats the new FCC broadband definition of 25Mb. Do you live out on a ridge miles from town, or up on the mountainside in the trees? We can hang a dish on your house, point it at one of our towers and get you a quality work-from-home telecommuting-grade connection.

We’ve solved the rural broadband problem here! It didn’t take buckets of public money, all it took was a handful of dedicated entrepreneurs 5 years of their lives, busting ass to build a completely independent parallel communications grid. But now after all that effort and just as it’s starting to really pay off, I’m facing an untenable situation straight out of Atlas Shrugged.



I’ll share the State action first. For the past several years, Comcast and Oregon have been in a dispute over certain taxes. Comcast has been paying them while disputing, because of course that’s how it works with the State. However, recently it seemed as though Comcast had a legal case and might not be liable for those taxes. The problem Oregon was facing, was that most of the counties had not been putting that money into escrow like they should, but spending it on bread & circuses, using it to shore up pension funds that officials had gambled on the market with, and so on.

Giving the money back was therefore not politically acceptable, and so the Oregon Supreme Court did some fancy footwork and found a way to reclassify Comcast as a different type of company, one that WAS subject to those taxes. Problem solved! One small side effect of course, was that in order to make the legal dance work, ALL telecoms in Oregon got reclassified.

So 5 weeks ago, I received a letter from the State Assessors, letting me know that my small two-man company was now subject to ‘Central Assessment’ for property taxes. We’re facing a fascinating new realm of taxable things known as ‘intangibles’. Things like brand recognition, goodwill, potential coverage area. Stuff that isn’t actually making me any in-hand cash yet, a tax on future effort I haven’t carried out!



The second action, this at the Federal level, is what really cements it for me. Many will have heard of the ongoing Network Neutrality / Title-II legislation being worked on by Congress and the FCC. On the face of it, it’s spun as ‘good for Internet Freedom’ and ‘levels the playing field’. The reality of it, is reclassification of ALL US broadband providers as Public Utilities at the Federal level.

So, a company I and my friends built from scratch, that doesn’t receive public subsidies or use public rights of way, will become public property. The American population has been groomed to such a level of entitlement that they see Internet service as a human right, like air or water. They feel they have a right to what I provide, a right to my labor, and the government is only too happy to oblige.

While the FCC assures small providers that wage & price controls are not part of this legislation, those of us who can read legalese can dig into the next round of this, scheduled for late 2016 or early 2017, and see that they do indeed plan just that. They aren’t calling it that of course, but it’s de-facto Nationalization. There’s one little factor they haven’t considered though, and that’s whether I’ll stand still for it.

I won’t! When this goes through, I’m out. I’ve joined an Entrepreneurial community project in the Lakes region of Chile, Fort Galt, and am pouring the same energy into it that enabled me to build an ISP from scratch. I am already seeing it becoming a buzzing-with-creativity hub, with the potential for creating the seeds of decentralized civilization.

Amazing!
Is there really an Entrepreneurial community in Chile named Fort Galt?
Or did I fall for a fake story again?

**Edit**
^.^
http://www.fortgalt.com/
https://www.facebook.com/fortgalt
http://shrugout.liberty.me/2014/11/15/leaving-leviathan-2-through-the-mirage/

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Here's a handy explanation in Comic form:

http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/

This was posted on a popular Reddit thread earlier today so you may need to refresh it a couple of times for it to come up.

 

[civvver]

Idk katzilla, but the article is pretty scary. Any time nationalization comes up it strikes fear into my heart. But also this article sums up my thoughts pretty nicely.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/

I mean how is it no one is worried about privacy with these changes?

We need to bust up these huge telecoms somehow and get better internet service and cheaper too. But idk if this is the way to do it.