Net Neutrality & The Business Of The Internet

If you can't articulate an argument beyond "SHUT THE FUCK UP, some nerds somewhere agree with me", maybe you shouldn't be so quick to argue.

As to others who have posted, thank you, I appreciate the debate.
Dammit, don't try and back me into attempting to explain this concept from the ground up to you by claiming that I'm avoiding any sort of rational discussion. Go back and read the thread (other than Jimmy's posts). All of the articles that I've posted have the information you need. Or do the homework on your own with your own relevant news sites. The simple fact that you're raising FCC oversight on some nebulous concept of "website registration/classification" means that you fundamentally do not understand the basic underpinnings of this discussion.
 
The long story short is that laws already exist to regulate the behavior you all are worried about and reclassifying the internet is dumb.

/thread
 
The long story short is that laws already exist to regulate the behavior you all are worried about and reclassifying the internet is dumb.

/thread
well at least you understood a bit of the discussion. that's more than I can say for the rest of these mouth breathers.
 
well at least you understood a bit of the discussion. that's more than I can say for the rest of these mouth breathers.

I was working on the net before it mattered enough to have these conversations.

http://www.edwardswildman.com/dc-ci...ited-authority-to-regulate-broadband-01-2014/

My understanding is that they were struck down, and therefore the melee.

While I agree that the DC Circuit courts interpretation was wrong here, those aren't the laws I was talking about. Discriminatory business practice law covers throttling and content blocking. If people are serious about it, that's the tree they need to bark up.
 
When I want an echo chamber, I go into my spare bedroom. Or I talk to my dog. I don't create a clothing website.
And when I'm looking for worthless conversation that circles the core concepts of the issue at hand while completely misunderstanding every salient point I'm attempting to discuss, I come to you. So its a little bit of give and take.
 
While I agree that the DC Circuit courts interpretation was wrong here, those aren't the laws I was talking about. Discriminatory business practice law covers throttling and content blocking. If people are serious about it, that's the tree they need to bark up.
That's a bit of a parallel conversation more related to DCMA and copyright law rather than net neutrality.
 
In all the discussions pro/con net neutrality is it not just "the how" of ensuring access and speed? I haven't seen anything credible written on government regulation resulting in licensing or fees for establishing websites. Where does this irrational fear come from?
 
That's a bit of a parallel conversation more related to DCMA and copyright law rather than net neutrality.
No, it's the key component of net neutrality. They cannot disrupt consumers access to paid services. That includes throttling and blocking and extends to everything from retail websites and banks and utilities to really oddball things like wikipedia that take donations.
 
In all the discussions pro/con net neutrality is it not just "the how" of ensuring access and speed? I haven't seen anything credible written on government regulation resulting in licensing or fees for establishing websites. Where does this irrational fear come from?

It is the how, but mechanism in place already serve to do just that, if people would just utilize them.

The last thing you want is the government regulating it as a utility. The only entities that win from that are utilities, not consumers. I deal with them everyday. It's a total joke.
 
No, it's the key component of net neutrality. They cannot disrupt consumers access to paid services. That includes throttling and blocking and extends to everything from retail websites and banks and utilities to really oddball things like wikipedia that take donations.
Hang on. I think we're talking about a few different things here. Throttling, blocking, and donations really have very little to do with net neutrality. These are not areas where paid priority access would affect services.
It is the how, but mechanism in place already serve to do just that, if people would just utilize them.

The last thing you want is the government regulating it as a utility. The only entities that win from that are utilities, not consumers. I deal with them everyday. It's a total joke.
What mechanisms?

To an extent, I agree with you that the simple classification is not a win. It must be followed up by strong legislation.
 
Hang on. I think we're talking about a few different things here. Throttling, blocking, and donations really have very little to do with net neutrality. These are not areas where paid priority access would affect services.

Yes, they do. Paid priority is illegal when speaking of different sources already. The only permissible end user speed differences is in the pay packages to providers which have to be applied evenly to all data.
 
Yes, they do. Paid priority is illegal when speaking of different sources already. The only permissible end user speed differences is in the pay packages to providers which have to be applied evenly to all data.
Actually, its not. See: T-Mobile's Unlimited Music Streaming. This is a currently legal form of paid prioritization (which should also be illegal, no matter how much I like it.)

Also, these are again not direct versions of net neutrality arguments. If T-Mobile offered me slower speeds when connecting to YouTube than it offered you, for no reasons other than service speeds, that's not net neutrality. If T-Mobile offered me slower speeds connecting to YouTube because Microsoft paid them to either direct traffic to their competing service, or diminish speeds Google received on their network, that's net neutrality.
 
Firstly, it's not legal, nobody has challenged it yet.

Second that is net neutrality, the direct arguments are actually false equivalents.

Third, that actually is the same legal status
 
Firstly, it's not legal, nobody has challenged it yet.

Second that is net neutrality, the direct arguments are actually false equivalents.

Third, that actually is the same legal status
1 - "Its legal until someone decides its illegal" is kind of the point of the net neutrality legislation.

2 & 3 - Ok, you officially lost me. I think we're talking over each other at this point. Can you please back up on this and give me an example of what you're talking about. When I read this post it looks like you're agreeing with me even though you're not.
 
ajit-pai-titleII-net-neutrality-secret-viaTwitter.jpg


There's your net neutrality. Funny how it takes 2,000 pages to spell out. Hmmmmmmmmm...
What are we looking at here?
 
there is nothing wrong__________________________with the government____________________________________________________________regulating the Inter____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________net
 
oh dear - i only just found this thread.

Yes.

Of course I have an opinion.
 
I say cut the shenanigans and bring net partiality all the way, it'll happen eventually anyways.
 
Net neutrality? Yes. It's died down a lot but the issue is more important than ever.

What made you think about it?

Reading about people ditching their broadband access (and the monthly fees that come with it) because of wireless plans like T-Mobile's "unlimited streaming". Plans which will be outlawed under Net Neutrality.

Also reading how Netflix is undergoing an upgrade to reduce the bandwidth their video takes up by 20% without affecting quality. An upgrade that they have no incentive whatsoever to continue if Net Neutrality passes.

Can you think of problem going on right now that Net Neutrality would solve?
 
Reading about people ditching their broadband access (and the monthly fees that come with it) because of wireless plans like T-Mobile's "unlimited streaming". Plans which will be outlawed under Net Neutrality.

Also reading how Netflix is undergoing an upgrade to reduce the bandwidth their video takes up by 20% without affecting quality. An upgrade that they have no incentive whatsoever to continue if Net Neutrality passes.

Can you think of problem going on right now that Net Neutrality would solve?
Its a sticky problem but one that highlights the issues with net neutrality. One of the biggest issues with T-Mobile's plan is the central question of what services fall under their unlimited rating:

T-Mobile’s Unlimited Video Raises Net Neutrality Concerns

T-Mobile 'breaks' net neutrality rules with Binge On - BBC News

Stanford Law Professor: T-Mobile's 'Binge On' Violates Net Neutrality Rules

In the former article, t-mobile is effectively choosing music services for you. This creates a competition barrier for other services and tilts the playing field, all at their whim. In the second, certain services are being throttled (the main being Youtube). One of the core concepts, and I'd argue the most important, is that carriers are not able to choose which services to favor. With a free and open internet, a neutral net, consumers are allowed to set the marketplace.

Now, at the moment, this doesn't look like a big deal. But what if in the future T-mobile decides to throttle Netflix? Or Comcast decides that internet gaming deserves slower speeds for some reason? Or AT&T gets into a dispute with Google and the Google Music service is excluded from whatever music streaming high speed package you have? No one has any idea what these companies will or won't do with their gatekeeping powers, so until the government runs the transmission lines (which will probably never happen), we need to have regulations keeping these companies from discriminating at their will.
 
Its a sticky problem but one that highlights the issues with net neutrality. One of the biggest issues with T-Mobile's plan is the central question of what services fall under their unlimited rating:

T-Mobile’s Unlimited Video Raises Net Neutrality Concerns

T-Mobile 'breaks' net neutrality rules with Binge On - BBC News

Stanford Law Professor: T-Mobile's 'Binge On' Violates Net Neutrality Rules

In the former article, t-mobile is effectively choosing music services for you. This creates a competition barrier for other services and tilts the playing field, all at their whim. In the second, certain services are being throttled (the main being Youtube). One of the core concepts, and I'd argue the most important, is that carriers are not able to choose which services to favor. With a free and open internet, a neutral net, consumers are allowed to set the marketplace.

Now, at the moment, this doesn't look like a big deal. But what if in the future T-mobile decides to throttle Netflix? Or Comcast decides that internet gaming deserves slower speeds for some reason? Or AT&T gets into a dispute with Google and the Google Music service is excluded from whatever music streaming high speed package you have? No one has any idea what these companies will or won't do with their gatekeeping powers, so until the government runs the transmission lines (which will probably never happen), we need to have regulations keeping these companies from discriminating at their will.

Everyone should be handcuffed because they may commit a crime in the future. Got it.
 
How is is handcuffing? Its the absence of restraints. All things are equal and you cannot choose to favor any one thing over another.

Again you can't identify any current problem it fixes, only that there might be a problem in the future. And "absence of restraints"? Are you fucking kidding me? You're advocating restraining companies from being able to offer, and people from being able to choose, pricing plans that they can choose from. It's like you're advocating banning guns before gunpowder has even been invented. Or a metaphor you might appreciate more - it's like having to pay for, and being able to access, every cable channel imaginable when all you really want is HBO and ESPN. Because being able to choose alacarte may lead to collusion or minority-centered or Christian networks going out of business.

You like being able to choose a plan that offers unlimited streaming? Fuck you. Somebody might abuse that in the future.
 
Again you can't identify any current problem it fixes, only that there might be a problem in the future. And "absence of restraints"?
It fixes one problem before it can get started - greedy corporations doing whatever they want to do with internet business and the services they provide to us.

nd "absence of restraints"? Are you fucking kidding me? You're advocating restraining companies from being able to offer, and people from being able to choose, pricing plans that they can choose from.
No no its not. People are able to choose whatever plans they want and business are able to offer whatever plans they want. Want they are supposed to be able to not do is cherry pick which providers fall under certain plans, and within those plans, offer differing services to different people/business/etc.. Remember when Comcast was throttling Netflix? That's a prime example.

It's like you're advocating banning guns before gunpowder has even been invented.
First of all, no it isn't. That metaphor is ridiculous. A better option would be under a non-gun neutrality system, Walmart started limiting the bullets they sold for certain manufactured guns because they decided that company didn't pay them enough money (assuming in that world that certain bullets only worked with certain brand guns.)

Or a metaphor you might appreciate more - it's like having to pay for, and being able to access, every cable channel imaginable when all you really want is HBO and ESPN. Because being able to choose alacarte may lead to collusion or minority-centered or Christian networks going out of business.
This is completely nonsensical. Being able to choose alacarte has nothing to do with net neutrality. You're trying to walk back and forth between the lines here. But, if you wanted to use that example, I can work with it. Suppose you had said package of christian networks, provided by a business catering to christians, and that was everything they sold. No problem, right? Right. Now suppose you wanted to add on the Playboy channel, but they decided to limit the speed at which the signal arrived at your TV, thus making the channel unwatchable, or made the Playboy corporation pay extra money to obtain the same signal transmission speed that the Christian channels had. THAT would be an example of a business flaunting net neutrality.

You like being able to choose a plan that offers unlimited streaming? Fuck you. Somebody might abuse that in the future.
No, fuck you, because people abuse it all the time already and again, that's not the point. Its not that these companies are even offering unlimited streaming. Its that they're offering unlimited streaming for certain businesses but not for others. The cherry picking is what's in violation of the law and that's exactly what the businesses want because then they can hold the excluded businesses feet to the fire and get them to fork over more money that the included businesses aren't paying.
 
JLP - I'm not sure you understand Net Neutrality.

It's more that nobody can articulate why this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Even Rambo admits it isn't a problem yet.

Think of applying Rambo's logic in the last paragraph to other industries. It's laughable.
 
It's more that nobody can articulate why this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Even Rambo admits it isn't a problem yet.
No plenty of people can articulate why its a problem. You just don't like their explanations. I said its not a serious problem yet, and that's precisely because they got out ahead of this thing in time. Already the big players are trying to roll this back and they're not doing it because they want to "compete" more.

Think of applying Rambo's logic in the last paragraph to other industries. It's laughable.
I have to twist myself into metaphorical knots to attempt to get this through to you but its pretty clear that's not working. fxh fxh is right that its just something you really don't get despite all my prodding to get you to read up on the issue. And that's ok.
 
JLP - I'm sure you don't want any more prodding by rambo - or maybe like sarto you do.
 
Net Neutrality Is A Year Old Today. What’s Changed, What Hasn’t, And Where Does It Stand?

Net Neutrality Is A Year Old Today. What’s Changed, What Hasn’t, And Where Does It Stand?

Happy birthday, net neutrality! A year ago today, after a long and contentious process, the FCC formally adopted the Open Internet Rule, reclassifying broadband internet as a Title II communications service and creating bright-line rules to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the internet.

But the end of the rulemaking process was only the beginning of another long series of fights. So a year in, what’s worked, what do we still not know, and where do we sit overall?

The Regulation
The actual rule created three bright-line obligations for both fixed (wired/wifi) and wireless (mobile) broadband:

  1. Broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
  2. They may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, application, services, or any classes thereof.
  3. They may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind — no paid prioritization or fast lanes.
The FCC exerted that authority by reclassifying internet services as Title II telecommunications services instead of information services, reversing a 20-year-old decision made when “internet” still meant, “I have AOL and my neighbor has CompuServe.”

Passing the rule was contentious, both inside the FCC and in the world of business. But it did pass, and officially became law on June 12, 2015.

However, there were (and are) still plenty of unresolved, open questionslingering after the rule was passed, including questions around zero-rating, data caps, peering agreements, and other tricky issues now in the broadband landscape.

The Results
ISPs swore up and down that the Title II ruling would damage their businesses and cause them to stop investing in their companies and networks, but so far that hasn’t borne out. Overall, their 2015 financials show continued growth and investment.

And when it comes to upgrading networks, building out business, and growing consumer services, those seem to be on track, too. Comcast — the nation’s biggest single provider — is continuing to work on upgrading networks to a newer, faster standard. AT&T is still expanding their GigaPower network. And Charter is still trying to match Comcast for size by buying Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks.

Meanwhile, net neutrality opponents were right about one thing: there aren’t that many real-world examples, at this specific time, of providers flagrantly breaking the rule — and that’s a good thing! Consumers are generally able to access the services they want without undue interference from their ISPs… although the first complaint was filed the very week the rule went into effect.

The Politics
It’s no secret that regulation is a contentious topic among both politicians and regulators, and the FCC has found itself mired in an even deeper political swamp than usual thanks to the net neutrality ruling.

In the first month after the FCC passed the rule, commission chairman Tom Wheeler was hauled into fiveseparate Congressional committee hearings, asked each time to justify not only net neutrality but, in some cases, the FCC’s entire mandate to regulate broadband at all.

Congress also tried floating their own version of net neutrality, trying to forestall the FCC’s process, but the bill didn’t get past the shouting stage before the commission passed their own rule.

Several of the same members of Congress, in both the House and Senate, tried using riders attached to spending bills and the appropriations process to prohibit the FCC from taking certain actions, or even to take funding away from the agency. Those motions, however, were unsuccessful.

A different set of Senators and Representatives, meanwhile, filed a brief in courton behalf of the FCC, to bolster their court case. And about that case…

The Legal Fight
Lawsuits, filed by the ISPs and their trade groups, started pouring in from he first moment that they were legally permitted, back in April, 2015.

The cases were heard at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit back in December, when a three-judge panel heard arguments from both the ISPs and the FCC.

The legal case hinges on some narrow points of law but the court will, from a high level, determine one, if the FCC had the right to reclassify broadband services and two, if the procedures under which they did so were correct. If the answer to both points is “yes,” the rule as we have it stands. If the answer to one or both is “no,” we’re back to the drawing table and the colossal fight begins again.

The court’s ruling still isn’t in, but is expected in March or April of this year.

The Boundary-Pushing
Meanwhile, the most activity is happening in exactly those grey areas the FCC left unresolved with the big rule.

Interconnection (peering) agreements are still a major issue, as traffic from streaming video binges now accounts for 70% of all prime-time internet use. The places where networks meet each other and the last mile are only going to get more contentious as time goes on, and the FCC’s plan is still to handle those on a case-by-case basis.

But the next big fight undoubtedly has to do with data caps, and manipulating consumer behavior through exempting some content from them (zero-rating).T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon all have some kind of sponsored data plan in place allowing businesses to exempt their content from wireless customers’ data caps.

(Even without exemptions, data caps on their own, as used by Comcast and other ISPs, may draw FCC attention if they continue to spread.)

Zero-rating remains entirely contentious. Some experts have said that it violates net neutrality. The ISPs and wireless companies, of course, disagree. But even the FCC doesn’t seem sure where it fits.

On the one hand, Wheeler has explicitly called the practice “innovative” and “highly competitive.” And on the other hand, the FCC has called the companies that do it into their office to explain themselves.

Where the matter goes from here is anyone’s guess, but one thing is for certain: any change will come with a whole lot of yelling all around.

John Lee Pettimore III John Lee Pettimore III
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom