Net Neutrality ???

Is this something internet users should be concerned about?

A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing ("throttling") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets.[6] Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the FCC ordered them to stop.[7] In another small example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services.[8] AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application.[9] In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and Youtube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was within their rights.[10]

Yes, you should be concerned. Get ready to pay more for a decent Internet speed. Companies also will be able to regulate content that is available.

A lot of screaming on various sites about this lately. Here's the other perspective:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-fcc-can-save-the-open-internet-1511281099

Personally, I'm not convinced it will be an issue. For example, just because Comcast can throttle Youtube doesn't mean they will, and if (as the above linked article suggests) Comcast is required to disclose this to users then the free market will take over. Comcast will lose customers and someone else who doesn't throttle will gain customers.

You can argue that infrastructure is in place that forces certain ISPs to be used but that isn't going to be the case for much longer. Wireless broadband will take care of that. The first wireless broadband available in a Comcast area in the above example will force Comcast to remain neutral or lose customers. The free market will keep Net Neutrality in place once multiple broadband choices are available.

How did you determine that? Sounds scary, vague and baseless.

We'll be returning to how things were a year ago...

I wish they would do away with the de facto telecom monopolies.

The problem with your argument is that this industry doesn't very well fit the definition of a free market

Not yet in most places, but like I said it isn't far off.

In any case, I don't believe that the day after the FCC decides to kill off Net Neutrality all the ISPs are going to go crazy throttling and blocking everything they can. Enough people already have broadband choices to make "We're a net-neutral company" an advertising hook to draw customers away from ISPs that choose to implement blocking measures.

Because it's never been allowed to be a free market.

Well when Comcast, AT&T, & Verizon are doing this in some markets now, even though it is illegal?

I don't know if this really is a "free market" place after all.

It's not far from it. Most people have multiple choices for Internet service. ATT is rolling out 1x1Gig service in DFW for $80/month. They are obviously doing that due to competition from the cable providers.

Multiple choices does not equal free market. It is still an incredibly regulated market, and there may be more than one choice, but there are only two or three, all of them crappy.

So what is the benefit of this?

The first time Internet has been regulated was with Net Neutrality. Telecommunications has been regulated and then so called deregulated. Carriers gouged customers on regulated pricing.

So the old stuff was 3G. The current stuff is 4g.

And everyone is racing to create 5g speeds.

So the more data you use the more they can charge you?

Is that the logic.

Prices per Mbps have come down with newer technologies

It's a lot more complicated than I want to get into tonight, but, you're changing the premise of what I first said and my responses to you.

Net Neutrality is not the first time telecom providers have been regulated. They've been regulated since the telephone was invented. Net Neutrality is not what my original statement about monopolies was about, but I don't think it's the answer, either.

If I remember correctly, Net Neutrality was not an accurate name for the law, similar to Affordable Care Act.

Telecom is different from Internet. Internet was not regulated until Net Neutrality.

You have changed the discussion from what I originally stated. The internet service providers, which also provide cable TV and phone, are heavily regulated. That's what I've been saying.

The Internet, hasn't been regulated, but the way it is provided has been, just like phone lines and cable TV.

I realize Net Neutrality is different from what I originally stated and I thought it was clear I was talking about the companies that provide Internet to consumers, like ATT, which I thought was obvious by your first response to me.

Those of you that don't think there's any reason to be concerned should look at who's backing the bill and wonder why. Companies pushing for this to go through: Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner and AT&T. If this goes into effect they will have the legal ability to throttle websites/services like Netflix, HBOGo, Youtube, Amazon streaming, etc. They can prioritize their own sites and basically force you to use their own services instead of a 3rd party.

This is 100% Washington DC catering to lobbying by the telecom industry - people who "cut the cord" by discontinuing cable packages and getting shows via streaming has risen dramatically in the last 5 years. The telecom companies see their business model is threatened and this is their attempt to stop it. I'm a lifelong Republican and this is unbelievable to me - Republicans mantra is t hat free markets should be the norm and then they go off and support a plan like this that is anything other than free market.

It was Obama cronies that pushed Net Neutrality. Google , Facebook and Net Flix

To be fair, requiring providers to be "neutral" is the opposite of free market and allowing them to run their business as they choose would be a more laissez-faire approach

These companies could then choose to inject their influence into the internet economy - the actual content ON the internet, potentially making that market less free

The conservative in me says government regulation can be bad, the person living in 2017 in me says that giving the few people that control our access to something as important as the internet too much power might be a little dangerous.


One thing nobody has touched on yet in here is that this goes further than the potential to limit or charge more for access to streaming services, entertainment, etc... isn't there also the possibility of restricting or limiting access to information?

"isn't there also the possibility of restricting or limiting access to information?"

Yes, I mentioned that in my post. The providers can limit content, restrict access to sites or information, and use slower speeds for businesses that compete with them (Comcast vs Netflix, for example). This is just the Trump FCC rolling over for the likes of Verizon, Comcast, etc.

What does it mean?

What if, what if. Nothing like making knee jerk regulations based on what if.

As always, follow the money that pushed for Net Neutrality. Google, Facebook and Netflix, cronyism at its finest.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/284644-netflix-airbnb-chief-execs-endorse-clinton

It seems like a significant "what if" though, no?

What is your objection to this particular regulation?

Of course it is significant.

Feds interfering with technology progress mainly. Most fed agencies could screw up a one car parade. I have no love for ISPs as I seldom spend a day that I don't cuss at least one ISP. What if Facebook, Google and other services restricted p, limited or censored your information? Oh dang too late, but that seems to be OK.

Cronyism? The is cronyism to the highest degree from the Republicans. There is zero benefit to the consumer to allow ISP's this power.

Exactly

As always, follow the money that pushed for suspending Net Neutrality. AT&T, Comcast, Verizon. Corporate cronyism at its finest. Note that the head of the FCC used to work for Verizon.

You guys have fallen for the BS, it's all a "what if" and NetFlix and others not wanting to pay to play. They did create a good cover to get the average joe to agree with them. I sure wish I could drive on the toll roads free of charge.

So tell me what benefit there is to the consumer?

Here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place and what we can look forward to if this gets repealed

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Source links where you can read the legal documents about it: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Kind of a mixed bag of [censored] you threw in there.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-the-fccs-vote-regulate-the-internet-mistake

Google is already demonetizing very popular hunting/shooting and right wing commentator's YouTube channels with no explanation. FB and Twitter have been in the news constantly for suspending, banning and shadow banning accounts for speech they don't like.

Or, they could open up the market place to ISPs, drop a bunch of regulations and let the consumers choose.

I think there's a significant difference. The barriers to entry in that market (the content providers) are much easier to overcome.

But you didn't answer my question, what is your objection to this particular regulation? I share your support for limited government interference in the market, but also accept that it is sometimes necessary. This one in particular does not seem to add any significant operating cost, if any, relative to the way it was before but does seem like it could offer a significant benefit to consumers and the public at large

Exactly DuckHunter, lets regulate them.

I seriously doubt it. A startup wouldn't even be a blip on the radar compared to the top players.

Cities and developers have more to do with ISP choice than anything

Regulate who?

Google , FB and Twitter

So the Feds have nothing to do with regulating which ISPs can operate where? The ISPs don't like having a few big fish in a huge pond?

I'm not disagreeing just to disagree, I promise. Show me what you're talking about. Explain it better, because I just don't understand what you're arguing.

Yeah, no. That's no good. There are enough regulations for private companies. Let's regulate the Texas Fishing Forum while we're at it.

Their success, or lack thereof, is not relevant. What is, is that anyone has the ability to create content provider that they thought was less biased or more truthful. That opportunity does not exist in the ISP market

The average consumer choices for home Internet are generally based on which company put in the infrastructure that services your house. Those choices, with the exception of copper telephone lines, are made by the cities or developers when a neighborhood is built. Typically a single cable company is franchised. Phone service LATA lines were drawn decades ago, deregulation made most phone#s portable but the infrastructure is seldom accessible to competitors.

Do you have an example where that does not exist? The only thing at issue in this whole deal was the cost of bandwidth. NetFlix and streaming was a game changer to ISP bandwidth models. End user pricing was based on these models and Netflix did not want to pay for the increased cost for an ISP to build out for the increased bandwidth. NetFlix wanted the ISP to absorb the increased cost or pass it on to the consumer, the ISP wanted NetFlix to absorb the cost. That in a nutshell is all this is about. NetFlix won the first round and kept it's cost down, but there are no free lunches.

Besides the cost of the infrastructure, you literally just said that ISP options are generally determined by the city or developer - so even if the consumers desired another option, in general it would be almost impossible for anyone to provide that

Hancock, you seem very passionate. But, I don’t follow half of what you’re typing.

The internet is a fad. It will go away.

Choice of ISPs are limited by that. Then comes the wireless provider, lower bandwidth, higher cost but making progress.

it is progress, yes. And hopefully our Federal, State, and local governments will resist the inevitable attempts by the existing ISPs to somehow protect their current regional monopolies. I also think that, while greatly reduced, the cost of the hardware to support these wireless broadband networks will still be prohibitive to anyone but the existing providers

I'm glad I'm not the only one unable to follow.

NextLink is a fairly new independent wireless ISP that is servicing the FW area and west. They are doing great in an unregulated market by beating DSL.

I helped Al build part of it in the 90's.

Good to know!

So going back to one of your previous posts, about NetFlix not wanting to pay to play, you're essentially advocating for these costs to be passed on to the consumer? Or are you assuming that once the ISPs have the ability to limit access to their service if they don't pay, they will?

There is no such thing as an unregulated market for ISPs.

Why would you expect Netflix to pay for ISP infrastructure upgrades? We're talking about 2 private companies here and you're saying net neutrality is necessary otherwise one private company has to pay for another companies poor planning/business model. You think Netflix is the only company that has caused increased user bandwidth? I'm sorry but Youtube, Hulu, Facebook, bittorent, Amazon, Xbox/Playstation might have something to say about that.

If there are increased costs for the ISP and they must pass on those costs to the consumers then so be it. And if consumers don't like it then they can go find another ISP. That's what free market is - that's what this should all be about. Repealing the net neutrality is the exact opposite of free market economics.

Increased cost almost always get passed on to the consumer. Luckily bandwidth keeps getting cheaper.

So if we assume the consumer is going to pay for the increased bandwidth cost anyways, why is it so important to do away with this regulation that could protect them in other ways?

I did say NetFlix AND streaming. It was a business negotiation and one of the businesses decided to tip the scale by getting the government on their side. There's a name for that...

https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/the-misconception-about-internet-fast-lanes

Simply because it's BS and based on what if. That's a bad basis for regulation, even worse when the agency calls on a 1934 law to create it.

Again, this is incorrect.

"net neutrality" legislation, I can't remember what the bill was called, is government intervention in a market.

Exactly! Just like the Affordable Care act was misleading.

Net neutrality was enacted because ISP's were blocking competing services or services they thought were using too much bandwidth. I posted this previously

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

I got called out at 2am this morning because the primary and backup ISPs were down at a customer site. Here I am sticking up for their sorry [censored].

K man, cry me a river

I guess we just disagree on the significance of the "what if"

right. Government regulation = less free market.

in a totally free market, the ISPs could block or throttle whatever they want. It's their business, their infrastructure, they get to make decisions and reap the benefits or suffer the consequences.

what you're talking about might be more like economic populism or economic equality, where you regulate those with high levels of economic power - either large amounts of capital or being one of only a few companies in an important industry (usually both) - in order to make it more fair for consumers.