Net Neutrality debate is back

[Zelig]

Wow, I'm surprised there are people here that aren't wholeheartedly in favour of anything that American ISPs are opposed to, Verizon in particular.

Here's some good reporting: http://arstechnica.com/business/

Summary: Verizon are whiny babies, Americans are damn lucky Wheeler turned out as good as he did considering he's a former telecom lobbyist.

And writeup from The New Yorker: Why Everyone Was Wrong About Net Neutrality

A list of some of the companies supporting net neutrality: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf

My shortened list of the biggest names:

Amazon
Dropbox
Ebay
Facebook
Google
Kickstarter
LinkedIn
Microsoft
Netflix
Reddit
Twitter
Yahoo

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

"Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything."

 

[Kozmos]

That is such a simplistic and stupid article. You think the government would be stopped somehow by NN failing? Or that various companies free of any kind of government intervention would play fair and square? I see some people are still living in the Red Scare mindset.

 

[IglooDame]

My shortened list of the biggest names:

Amazon
Dropbox
Ebay
Facebook
Google
Kickstarter
LinkedIn
Microsoft
Netflix
Reddit
Twitter
Yahoo

The big names I see in the list are Cogent and Level3. Any other ISPs? The others are apparently all content providers and understandably reluctant to be in a position where they're paying more for premium bandwidth.

 

[civvver]

"Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything."

Why is that at all funny? Government isn't government anymore, it's all special interest groups, huge corporate lobbies. It does not represent the people, it represents those special interests who have the most money. So why do we think that this decision is going to be much different?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Why is that at all funny? Government isn't government anymore, it's all special interest groups, huge corporate lobbies. It does not represent the people, it represents those special interests who have the most money. So why do we think that this decision is going to be much different?

The government that wants to make Net Neutrality official favors the special interests, but the ISP's that want to kill Net Neutrality ARE the special interests. So what are we to make of this logical conundrum that the government, slaves to special interests, are trying to introduce legislation that is clearly despised by one of the largest, most monopolistic special interest industries in the country?

 

[Zelig]

The big names I see in the list are Cogent and Level3. Any other ISPs? The others are apparently all content providers and understandably reluctant to be in a position where they're paying more for premium bandwidth.

Yeah, Cogent and Level 3 are big if you're in the industry, but neither are really consumer-facing. Almost no ISPs (Sprint probably the biggest exception, though they're mostly mobile and didn't sign that letter) with major consumer-facing operations are fully on board with net neutrality.

Looking at the list for non-consumer-facing industry names, CloudFlare is the other biggest one that stands out.

Why is that at all funny? Government isn't government anymore, it's all special interest groups, huge corporate lobbies. It does not represent the people, it represents those special interests who have the most money. So why do we think that this decision is going to be much different?

Because "Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent" is a ridiculous strawman that is true of nobody and "I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant" is a patently untrue assertion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Looks like Netflix likes to have its Net neutrality cake and eat it too with a side order of good old fashioned corporate hypocrisy... just as I'd feared

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-netflix-recants-on-obamanet-1425854967

Or maybe I misinterpret somehow?

 

[Zelig]

Paywall for wsj, ars link: http://arstechnica.com/business/201...exemptions-except-when-it-benefits-from-them/

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Civver,

The crux of the issue is really 'do you want the internet to stay as it is?' versus, 'let's give telecoms with quasi-monopolies more power to charge higher prices to everyone'.

I get you're leery of regulation but in this case at least going from your comments here, it seems to be keeping you from looking at the issue objectively. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Looks like Netflix likes to have its Net neutrality cake and eat it too with a side order of good old fashioned corporate hypocrisy... just as I'd feared

http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-netflix-recants-on-obamanet-1425854967

Or maybe I misinterpret somehow?

At first blush it does seem like a pretty straightforward case of hypocrisy, however, I'm initially willing to cut them some slack because the circumstances in the US and Australia are different. Data caps in the US are the exception, not the rule, whereas my understanding is that Australian ISP's are the exact opposite. People who are in Australia can chime in to correct me if I'm wrong, but the Australians I've spoken to in the past have reliably informed me that data caps are the norm with Australian ISP's, in which case it's really hard to fault Netflix for not complaining about this special treatment since their entire business model is not viable in that country without that special treatment.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That is an important insight/clarification thanks. But now when I think about it in that context, it seems even more hypocritical. Because arguably, one of the important aspects of claiming or advocating principles, particularly moral principles, is that you should be willing to let your so-called principles apply whether they are advantageous to you personally or not.

I mean if Netflix is all for Net-neutrality when it is financially advantageous to them, but has no problem engaging in pay-to-play favouritism when it is financially advantageous elsewhere, then their support of Net-neutrality is not principled at all, but just a blatant money-grab, cloaked in the goodwill of "free-and-open-internet". If Netflix is the sponsor and (therefore presumably) partially the author of the Net-neutrality legislation, I am suspicious about the loopholes they will give themselves in the law anticipating what they will want to do once they are in a stronger position vis-à-vis Comcast/Verizon etc.

 

[schlaufuchs]

My favorite part of that article is that they called it "Obamanet". Way to show your true colors, WSJ.

 

[Tahuti]

My favorite part of that article is that they called it "Obamanet". Way to show your true colors, WSJ.

Give me Obamanet access. I must attack. I must attack.

Spoiler :

Deus Ex

 

[Wolfbeckett]

That is an important insight/clarification thanks. But now when I think about it in that context, it seems even more hypocritical. Because arguably, one of the important aspects of claiming or advocating principles, particularly moral principles, is that you should be willing to let your so-called principles apply whether they are advantageous to you personally or not.

I mean if Netflix is all for Net-neutrality when it is financially advantageous to them, but has no problem engaging in pay-to-play favouritism when it is financially advantageous elsewhere, then their support of Net-neutrality is not principled at all, but just a blatant money-grab, cloaked in the goodwill of "free-and-open-internet". If Netflix is the sponsor and (therefore presumably) partially the author of the Net-neutrality legislation, I am suspicious about the loopholes they will give themselves in the law anticipating what they will want to do once they are in a stronger position vis-à-vis Comcast/Verizon etc.

All true, but it's also important to remember that Netflix is a publicly traded company, and is therefore legally obligated to their shareholders to not turn down profit incentives based on these types of principles. I don't want to seem like I'm defending Netflix, because I don't even use their service, but it's possible that their CEO or whatever is personally opposed to this kind of special treatment bandwidth exemption in principle while simultaneously feeling obligated to increase profits in Australia so as not to get sued by the shareholders. Being a publicly traded company means that you cannot just do whatever you want, no matter what your principles are.

Now, if that Australian ISP released a statement saying they were also extending the same kind of special treatment to one of Netflix's competitors, and then Netflix complained about that, it would be obvious hypocrisy. But right now it just looks like they're playing the game because they are legally obligated to.

 

[Sommerswerd]

All true, but it's also important to remember that Netflix is a publicly traded company, and is therefore legally obligated to their shareholders to not turn down profit incentives based on these types of principles ... right now it just looks like they're playing the game because they are legally obligated to.

You're right of course, but you can see how this just brings us full circle to the original point (my original point anyway), that Net-neutrality is not about protecting us the consumer at all. It is just a moneymaking tool of a corporate giant on behalf of it's shareholders. We (internet users) are praising the concept of Net-neutrality, but the concept is irrelevant. It's just propaganda to get us on board with Netflix (and others) corporate power-grab, that ultimately has nothing to do with protecting consumers. As soon as Net neutrality is not financially advantageous to Netflix, they will use their prepackaged loopholes to get out of it. The whole thing just seems like a farce.

Someone earlier compared it to the health care law. I think that is a fair comparison. The health care law was sold as "Universal Health care" and people supported it based on that concept. But ultimately it was not Universal health care at all, certainly not what they have in Canada and England... it was just a way to force everyone to buy Health insurance, so basically a moneymaker for the Insurance companies.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

You're right of course, but you can see how this just brings us full circle to the original point (my original point anyway), that Net-neutrality is not about protecting us the consumer at all. It is just a moneymaking tool of a corporate giant on behalf of it's shareholders. We (internet users) are praising the concept of Net-neutrality, but the concept is irrelevant. It's just propaganda to get us on board with Netflix (and others) corporate power-grab, that ultimately has nothing to do with protecting consumers. As soon as Net neutrality is not financially advantageous to Netflix, they will use their prepackaged loopholes to get out of it. The whole thing just seems like a farce.

Right... except in this case it's kind of a "pick your poison" situation. Do we go with the net neutrality that we have and place our trust in corporations like Netflix? Or do we not legislate met neutrality at all, in which case we're putting our trust in different corporations, like Comcast? Or do we regulate the Internet as a utility and put our trust in the largest corporation of all, the US government? There is no option on the table that doesn't involve trusting large organizations to not screw us, and that being the case, I'm in favor of any legislation at all at this point, as I consider ISP companies like Comcast to be by FAR the least trustworthy of the 3 options.

Someone earlier compared it to the health care law. I think that is a fair comparison. The health care law was sold as "Universal Health care" and people supported it based on that concept. But ultimately it was not Universal health care at all, certainly not what they have in Canada and England... it was just a way to force everyone to buy Health insurance, so basically a moneymaker for the Insurance companies.

Which is why I laugh when people call it "Obamacare", as if this was what he wanted all along. Obama wanted TRUE universal healthcare, the Canadian/European kind that you mentioned, and the conservatives forced him to compromise it down to it's current half-assed implementation. Hopefully if Hillary gets elected in the next presidential race she can push it closer to what it should be. But again, the healthcare issue is once again just being forced to choose between giants, just like net neutrality. Either you trust the government to run UHC correctly, or you trust health insurance corporations to not screw people. Pick you poison.

 

[Zelig]

I don't really see any reason that a company that fully supports net neutrality shouldn't pay for equal treatment as their competitors while lobbying for regulation to eliminate the option of companies paying.

I don't even like Netflix, I think their service is junky.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Right... except in this case it's kind of a "pick your poison" situation ... I'm in favor of any legislation at all at this point, as I consider ISP companies like Comcast to be by FAR the least trustworthy of the 3 options ... Either you trust the government to run UHC correctly, or you trust health insurance corporations to not screw people. Pick you poison.

Well stated points all. You for one, are at least thinking clearly about the situation we are in.

Your points help me think more clearly about it. I still don't know who is better, but I can say at least, that out of Comcast.net, Netflix.com, and US.gov, there is no way I would pick Comcast, they are the worst... by far the absolute worst option of the three. They might even be worse than "insurance companies"

 

[Thedrin]

Relevant point from Zelig's article:

Rudolf van der Berg, an economist and policy analyst for OECD (and author of "How the ‘Net works: an introduction to peering and transit"), told us that Australian Internet providers traditionally have data caps because of the high cost of transit compared to other countries. Content delivered to ISPs through peering connections is generally exempt from caps, and it appears that Netflix is peering with ISPs in Australia. That means that ISPs can connect directly to Netflix without paying transit providers to carry the traffic.