# Net Neutrality ...



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/11/18/fcc.net.neutrality.wired/

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/net-neutrality-groups-push-fcc/



> FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said the Comcast ruling and Google and Verizon's separate plan threw a hitch in his agency's own network neutrality plans.
> 
> Federal Communication Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski blamed the lack of a new policy for network neutrality on a federal court's decision to expel his agency's bid to regulate Comcast's online management.
> 
> ...


http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise...dered-Network-Neutrality-FCC-Chairman-230523/

The first two articles get a bit too political to post snippets here.

And, yeah, this has to do with TV considering the discussions here about IpTV and restrictions of switching to it from satellite due to bandwidth limits and broadband availability.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I guess you can say it hit the fan today.


----------



## klang (Oct 14, 2003)

Well this is rich, The new rules are a secret. :nono2:

The courts and/or congress are going to slap it down anyway.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

It's not about bits and bytes. What this is really about is establishing a legal basis for regulation of the Net as a telecommunications service. Then, all kinds of fees and taxes can be assessed. Look at your telephone bill.

--- CHAS


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

In spite of being told by a Federal Appeals Court last April that the FCC did not have the authority do do this, the FCC did it anyway. In spite of warnings from some congressmen and senators regarding this the FCC did it anyway. I wonder just how long this rule will stand?


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

olguy said:


> In spite of being told by a Federal Appeals Court last April that the FCC did not have the authority do do this, the FCC did it anyway. In spite of warnings from some congressmen and senators regarding this the FCC did it anyway. I wonder just how long this rule will stand?


Um two weeks.


----------



## Luck255 (Mar 5, 2009)

So I'm pretty confused about this. The FCC passed net neutrality, which is regulating the internet or not? And in which ways? I just read about a dozen articles online, all extremely biased, either saying this is good because it makes the internet fair and free (keeps it the same way it is) or that it is bad because it allows censorship (changes the way the internet is). I guess what I'm trying to ask is, if I want the internet to remain the way it is would I be for or against "net neutrality"?


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

...and what about the rest of the world? Will net neutrality, whatever it means or however it is implemented, put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage or make us the target of derision?

Personally, I'd like to see Big Brother keep hands off but I may change my tune if Comcast ever throttles my NetFlix.


----------



## xmetalx (Jun 3, 2009)

Net neutrality, as I understand it, is the first example you gave, basically keeping it 'free' and unbiased so that companies/businesses/governments can't censor it.... if you want the internet to stay how it is you should be 'for' net neutrality.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

^^^ Ditto.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Nick said:


> ...and what about the rest of the world? Will net neutrality, whatever it means or however it is implemented, put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage or make us the target of derision?
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see Big Brother keep hands off but I may change my tune if Comcast ever throttles my NetFlix.


Big Brother has already messed this up with allowing the telecommunication monopolies. If we had a free market and competition, maybe we'd have faster and cheaper internet? Take a look at this overview quote and link from GIZMODO in 2009 concerning broadband speeds & costs around the world:



> Number one is, predictably, Japan, where the average broadband speed is 60mbps and they pay $0.27 per 1mbps. We, in comparison, average 4.8mbps and pay $3.33 per 1mbps, putting us at #15. Be sure to click the above image to see it in its full glory.


*Gizmodo*

Your scenario is viable. As the rules currently stand, there is nothing to stop COMCAST from throttling back your Netflix access.

So while I agree that as a nation we need less regulation, I think we need to have some baseline regulations in place to ensure total access to the internet.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

In the long term, the principal of net neutrality could prove to be _almost_ as important as the First Amendment itself. (Underlining below for emphasis)


> *FCC passes first net neutrality rules
> The Washington Post* -- By Cecilia Kang
> 
> The Federal Communications Commission voted Tuesday to approve its first ever Internet access regulation, which ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users.
> ...


Full story @ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/fcc.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert


----------



## olds403 (Nov 20, 2007)

The internet has gotten along just fine without the "help" of the FCC until now, it is not necessary and will ultimately lead to more regulations and restrictions than freedoms & "neutrality".


----------



## Voyager6 (Apr 17, 2006)

Shades228 said:


> NN is attempting to stop the companies that control the bandwidth from getting into business models where they make money by stopping, or making it very inconvenient, what you want for companies that will pay them more for what they want you to see.


Exactly. The FCC is attempting to prevent those companies that own the fiber from charging rates appropriate with usage. That is, regulate the ISP's as utilities without actually calling them utilities. The Courts have specifically told the FCC they do not have the authority from Congress to do this. Congress has yet to change the law to allow the FCC to regulate the ISP's. Yet, the FCC has decided to do it anyway. I predict a quick injunction and/or slap down from Congress.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Voyager6 said:


> Exactly. The FCC is attempting to prevent those companies that own the fiber from charging rates appropriate with usage.


Have the actual rules been released yet or is everyone still discussing this based on the worst case scenarios put forward from each side of the argument?

From what I've read, charging rates appropriate with usage will be fine ... but charging higher rates due to content that competes with services the ISP provides (or any other content based rate) will not be appropriate.

Charge for bits, bytes and baud ... not what is encapsulated in the data.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

James Long said:


> Have the actual rules been released yet or is everyone still discussing this based on the worst case scenarios put forward from each side of the argument?
> 
> From what I've read, charging rates appropriate with usage will be fine ... but charging higher rates due to content that competes with services the ISP provides (or any other content based rate) will not be appropriate.
> 
> Charge for bits, bytes and baud ... not what is encapsulated in the data.


I don't think that the initial round of rules will be particularly offensive. I think they are meant to appear positive. The issue is the right to regulate and what could come of that in the future.


----------



## Voyager6 (Apr 17, 2006)

patmurphey said:


> I don't think that the initial round of rules will be particularly offensive. I think they are meant to appear positive.* The issue is the right to regulate and what could come of that in the future.*


The FCC shouldn't be setting any rules on "net neutrality" without specific Congressional authority. The Federal Court of Appeals has stated the FCC does not have the legal authority. I haven't heard that the Supreme Court has overturned this decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html



> U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic
> By EDWARD WYATT
> Published: April 6, 2010
> WASHINGTON - *A federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that regulators had limited power over Web traffic under current law.* The decision will allow Internet service companies to block or slow specific sites and charge video sites like YouTube to deliver their content faster to users.
> ...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040600742.html


> Court rules for Comcast over FCC in 'net neutrality' case
> 
> By Cecilia Kang
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Wasn't it earlier this year that certain customers who were on a particular cable system were prevented from accessing Hulu via their cable-based internet connections?

THAT is what Net Neutrality is all about.

It's about preventing Comcast from forcing you to pay for cable when all you want is internet. The FCC *did* this when the players were the telephone companies and the service in questions was DSL and ADSL. Phone companies didn't want to offer "naked DSL" (DSL without you having a landline). I was a beneficiary of that, though I didn't need to be.

I've since given up the copper POTS line for a fiber line and moved my land-line number to a VOIP system. So, in a sense, I have "naked fiber".


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

All this debate puzzles me. The private sector did not put a dime into "inventing" the internet. It was taxpayer money spent by the government. The government should have a right to say how it is used by the private sector. If Congress chooses to give it all away to conglomerates to use huge asset developed by the government to suck money from our pockets into theirs, that's our fault.

The FCC is trying to keep the "information superhighway" invented using government money from becoming a series of more or less interconnected toll booths favoring those with huge amounts of money over those without. The long-term perception is that our economic well-being as a nation would be better served with an interstate highway system.


----------



## rocatman (Nov 28, 2003)

phrelin said:


> All this debate puzzles me. The private sector did not put a dime into "inventing" the internet. It was taxpayer money spent by the government. The government should have a right to say how it is used by the private sector. If Congress chooses to give it all away to conglomerates to use huge asset developed by the government to suck money from our pockets into theirs, that's our fault.
> 
> The FCC is trying to keep the "information superhighway" invented using government money from becoming a series of more or less interconnected toll booths favoring those with huge amounts of money over those without. The long-term perception is that our economic well-being as a nation would be better served with an interstate highway system.


It is good to see someone knows the history of the internet. I was fortunate to be able to use while working for the Department of the Navy in 1987.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> All this debate puzzles me. The private sector did not put a dime into "inventing" the internet.


Are we still using that Internet or has private companies built their own internet similar to the one the government created?

It seems to me that a tracert to pretty much anywhere I go doesn't use the same Internet that existed when I got my first domain (1995). Nowadays the connections are private backbone to private backbone with the government nets only popping up when visiting government and some educational sites.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> Are we still using that Internet or has private companies built their own internet similar to the one the government created?
> 
> It seems to me that a tracert to pretty much anywhere I go doesn't use the same Internet that existed when I got my first domain (1995). Nowadays the connections are private backbone to private backbone with the government nets only popping up when visiting government and some educational sites.


I don't disagree. Much like the railroads in the west in the 19th Century, or the spreading of the power grid during the early 20th Century, where in both cases the Government facilitated the effort every step of the way, the Internet is a privately owned public utility system.

The tension is between the private owners and the "public" nature of the utility. The government has to maintain the balance.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I'm guessing the some here on this thread work for ISPs that will be affected by the rules and are desperately engaging in propaganda to skew public opinion in their favor and against fairness to the consumer.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Doesn't it all come down to whom do we trust to protect 
net neutrality, the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) or the FCC?

Here are our choices:

1. [ ] ISPs
2. [ ] FCC
3. [x] None of the above

What's that??? 'None of the above' isn't a choice?

My bad.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Nick said:


> Doesn't it all come down to whom do we trust to protect
> net neutrality, the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) or the FCC?
> 
> Here are our choices:
> ...


Actually, I'm not sure the FCC has the authority to do it either. So if you put it ISPs, Congress, or None of the above, the latter is really the only option.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I've learned form many years of personal experience NOT to trust AT&T. Never had to deal with Comcast that I know of.


I cant' think of a single reason why it shouldn't be under the FCC. It's certainly a communications method. And it uses telephone, television (cable) and or radio/wireless/cellular services for access, all of which are already under FCC control.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

olds403 said:



> The internet has gotten along just fine without the "help" of the FCC until now, it is not necessary and will ultimately lead to more regulations and restrictions than freedoms & "neutrality".


Sure it has [heavy sarcasm]. That is why the US ranks #15 when it comes to speed and costs. See Gizmodo link in post #11 of this thread. Japan averages speeds of 12 times faster than the US for 1/12th the price. Yep, we're doing just great.

I don't want the FCC to regulate the internet other than to ensure that we are allowed to surf/download without being blocked by the ISP. Some ISPs that are also content providers (e.g. COMCAST), have already shown that in their model of 'our' internet, they will block/throttle access to their competition.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

The FCC doesn't have to "ask" Congress' permission for anything...
Congress actually runs the FCC.
The FCC is a special type of entity that is under no other department or branch of government, except Congress itself. It does only THEIR bidding.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> The FCC doesn't have to "ask" Congress' permission for anything...
> Congress actually runs the FCC.


So if the commissioners wanted to do something that was against what Congress wanted ... they would 'ask'.

The FCC has a lot of leeway with making their own decisions. As long as they are not going against Congress they make their own rules.


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

Congress gives the FCC their orders, and the FCC is expected to make the rules that will carry them out. If the FCC goes too far, Congress can rein them in and make them change the rules.
But, Congress is the only body that can do so, since the FCC is not under any department (like Justice, Commerce, etc). Every other agency has a department or branch of government between them and the Congress/Administration.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

kenglish said:


> Congress gives the FCC their orders, and the FCC is expected to make the rules that will carry them out.


The FCC does more than just copy the rules that Congress wrote.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

kenglish said:


> Every other agency has a department or branch of government between them and the Congress/Administration.


A number of independent agencies exist.

In terms of domestic policy, probably the most important today is the Federal Reserve System which has the responsibility to conduct the nation's monetary policy, supervise and regulate banking institutions, maintain the stability of the financial system and provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions.

The first was the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was a regulatory body in the United States created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which was signed into law by President Grover Cleveland. (The agency was abolished in 1995.) The ICC's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers.

Wikipedia lists about 30 examples under an article entitled Independent agencies of the United States government.

An example that many of us remember was when in 1971 Congress eliminated the Cabinet position of Postmaster General and created the United States Postal Service, defined by statute as an "independent establishment" of the federal government.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

The FCC can reclassify ISP's and then they fall into the FCC domain for regulation on internet. They are attempting to not use that legal loop hole. They have the authority to do so under those laws. That's all the Appeals court validated was that if the FCC doesn't change the clasification they don't have that authority.

If people hate carriage disputes now wait until there are such things with ISP's. The only difference is in most areas you're limited on choices to maybe 2-3 options. Yes there are some areas where you have 5+(you don't need to tell us) those are the exception to the rule.

I'm not a fan of regulations because if written poorly or done incorrectly they have the potential for the same backlash. Companies are going to find ways to make as much money as possible. That's their goal and we award them for it. However I am in favor of something that clearly and unerringly states that companies in charge of distribution of bandwidth may not impede speed, or delivery of any legal content. If the need for clasification needs to be made then it needs to be written so that new clasifications cannot be created by adding a "feature" to it. 

I cannot see in any way how this can impede a companies ability to design new content and compete. I can see how it can impede a companies ability to start new fee systems like we have currently for TV. Imagine having to pay more for unhindered access to Disney's websites. The possibilities are endless on how pay for content/bandwidtch could change the internet in a negative way. It isn't much of a stretch to say that the current pay for TV model could be the next internet usage model.


----------



## FTA Michael (Jul 21, 2002)

Shades228 said:


> Imagine having to pay more for unhindered access to Disney's websites.


In a way, we're already there. I'd love to have access to streaming video on ESPN3 (formerly ESPN360.com), but it's completely unavailable to me because of my ISP.

If I had chosen Comcast to provide my internet access, ESPN3 would be free to me. Since I use Qwest instead, ESPN3 is unavailable at any price.

I don't know that I'd be willing to spend more than a dollar or two for ESPN3, but it irks me that it has to be either in the "basic tier" of internet service (so every ISP user pays for it) or not available.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From FCC to try again on net neutrality we learn:



> Will net neutrality live? The FCC said today it will propose new Open Internet rules, an announcement that comes about a month after a court decision was thought to have killed hopes about equal treatment of online traffic.
> 
> A federal appeals court last month handed Verizon a victory in its lawsuit challenging the Federal Communications Commission's authority to regulate its broadband business. Verizon immediately stated its commitment to an open Internet. But the ruling was widely viewed as a blow to the Internet as we know it, a move that would pave the way for broadband providers to slow or block certain Internet traffic. Our own Troy Wolverton wrote: "If you like how cable television works, you're going to love how a court decision Tuesday could change the Internet."
> 
> "The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the Internet remains open and fair," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in a statement today. Wheeler said his office would not legally challenge the Verizon decision, but that it would "hold Internet Service Providers to their commitment" to "honor the safeguards articulated in the 2010 Open Internet Order."


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Netflix to pay Comcast to ensure network speeds
> 
> Los Angeles Times
> 24 minutes ago
> ...


I've also seen mention that Verizon may be doing the opposite - throttling speeds to NF.

And so it begins.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Long-running disputes involving Verizon, Netflix, and Internet bandwidth providers are flaring up, causing recent slowdowns in Netflix speed.
> 
> According to a _Wall Street Journal_ report tonight, "[t]he online-video service has been at odds with Verizon Communications Inc. and other broadband providers for months over how much Netflix streaming content they will carry without being paid additional fees. Now the long simmering conflict has heated up and is slowing Netflix, in particular, on Verizon's fiber-optic FiOS service, where Netflix says its average prime-time speeds dropped by 14 percent last month."


http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/verizon-seeks-payment-for-carrying-netflix-traffic-wsj-reports/


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

If I pay for Internet service, I should be able to go to any website that I please. What if Comcast/Vivendi/Universal/NBC/(soon to be)Time Warner Cable take it to the next level and decided to block websites for unfriendly political candidates, their competitors, or ideas that they don't like? These companies are getting too powerful in deciding what they will allow you to see.

I was a little irritated that when I was in Target one time, whenever I went to some of their competitors' websites, it redirected me to the Target website. Even though their WiFi is "free," (which I am really paying for when I buy something) they shouldn't be deciding which websites I visit. It looks like they have stopped doing this, but it shows that companies will do things like this.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From The Hollywood Reporter:



> ...The Federal Communications Commission is expected to begin circulating new rules on Thursday that would open the way for content companies to pay Internet service providers like Comcast, Charter, Verizon, AT&T and Cox Communications for faster service and special access to consumers.
> 
> The new rules come after a federal appeals court in January struck down net neutrality rules pushed by the Obama administration and approved by the FCC that prohibited Internet providers from blocking or prioritizing Web traffic. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said in February that there would be new rules proposed in light of the court ruling.
> 
> Under the proposed rules, Internet service providers would still be prevented from blocking or discriminating against specific websites but they would be able to offer preferential treatment as long as it is done at a reasonable price and is offered to everyone. It will be up to the FCC to decide what is reasonable.


If I were starting a new thread, I would entitle it "End to Net Neutrality Coming". It's unclear what this will actually mean in the year 2020 other than paying higher fees to streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. I'm sure it won't slow down access to my personal web site. :sure:


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I agree ... it's the beginning of the end of net neutrality. When
Comcast squeezed Netflix' nuts we all felt a sharp twinge of pain.
Too big to fail has turned into 'too big to lose'. Thanks, FCC and
DOJ and a _bought and paid for_ Congress.

For consumers, it's all downhill from here. Say goodnight, Gracie.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Yes, for consumers it's downhill.


Nick said:


> I agree ... it's the beginning of the end of net neutrality. When
> Comcast squeezed Netflix' nuts we all felt a sharp twinge of pain.
> Too big to fail has turned into 'too big to lose'. Thanks, FCC and
> DOJ and a _bought and paid for_ Congress.
> ...


Yes, for consumers it's likely to be similar to the time when C-band open feeds slowly disappeared and create-your-own package options became package options: not-very-expensive, expensive, very-expensive, outrageously-expensive. Then the international media conglomerates bought up most channels after creating a number of their own. And just like most of this forum's members won't read this thread, within a decade most Americans will think Netflix, HULU+, etc., at $43.99 a month each is outrageous not because of Comcast, Disney, News Corp, etc., and the government but because of Netfix management. And they certainly won't think it's their fault because they thought the important issues in the 2014 Congressional elections were gay rights and Obamacare and voted accordingly.

But international conglomerates are just greedy selfish persons too....


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

From FCC says don't convict it just yet, it's not killing net neutrality:



> [FCC Chairman Tom] Wheeler says it isn't so, that the reports "are flat out wrong." In a post on the FCC's website, he says the proposal calls for Internet service providers to be transparent about their policies, and "that ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity."
> 
> So let's get this straight by using a timely, real-world example: Comcast proclaims that it's charging Netflix so customers can stream offerings such "House of Cards" online without hiccups, but the cable and broadband provider says it's still committed to an open Internet because the direct connection it now has with Netflix bypasses other network traffic. It's loud, proud and transparent about creating a fast lane - which to use sounds an awful lot like "favoring traffic." That's not unreasonable, right?
> 
> ..."This is a fundamental reorientation of the way the Internet has always worked, and would undermine its use for free expression and innovation by making it harder to start a new website or a company or organization that relies on the web," Internet activism group Demand Progress said in a statement. Again: That's not "commercially unreasonable," right? Wheeler's got some more explaining to do.


Yeah, right. He's got to do some explaining to other FCC members over drinks at the club. :nono2:

Tom Wheeler, Chairman: Term expires in 2018. Prior to working at the FCC, Wheeler worked as a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the cable and wireless industry, with prior positions including President of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). He was a Democratic Party nominee.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah, that's goofy logic.

Saying essentially "ISPs can charge for faster access to some services" and acting as if that's a different statement than "ISPs can slow down services that don't pay more"...

It's the same thing.

If Netflix has to pay for faster access... then only if they pay every ISP will it "equal" out across all customers... and even then, the customers will end up paying more for Netflix as Netflix has to raise prices to account for that... meanwhile the ISPs aren't reducing costs to customers due to the influx of new revenue from this... so in the end, consumers lose.

We aren't talking long-distance vs local phone calls... in the olden days where long distance cost substantially more to consumers but it did at least require more infrastructure to implement...

This would be like if it cost more for you to call your local Pizza delivery guy than it cost to call the local grocery store.... but there was a promise that the clarity of the call to the Pizza guy would be better and would have less random disconnections.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Saying essentially "ISPs can charge for faster access to some services" and acting as if that's a different statement than "ISPs can slow down services that don't pay more"...
> 
> It's the same thing.


It is not supposed to be the same thing. The FCC does not want the latter - intentionally slowing down services that don't pay more. The FCC would like ISPs to treat companies that don't pay more the same as they should be treated today - neutrally - data is data with no slow down placed on certain sites.

The new priority service should be offered in a way that does not affect the current regular service. For example, Netflix placing server mirrors on an ISP's network or paying for a high capacity pipe between the servers and that ISP's network. Such treatment will improve Netflix's offering to their customers using that ISP - but it does not lower the service level given to other content providers. (It may end up improving service as the "normal" pipe is not clogged with Netflix traffic and can be used for other services.)

In the FCC's view providing a better connection is OK ... but providing a higher internal QoS (quality of service) for a fee would be bad.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

And yet, to the end-user it's the same thing. That's why it is a screwy semantic way of making regulations. The next (or perhaps already happening) step is to make sure the regular pipe is slow.

Think...

This is like having a line at the store... then having a "priority customer" line where you can pay more for a shorter line with faster service.

The problem is... eventually this evolves not just to be a priority customer fast lane BUT the normal line becomes slower, in part to encourage you to join the priority line... they just stop trying with the normal line and say "well, you could pay for the priority line"..

That's the way this thing will evolve too.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> This is like having a line at the store... then having a "priority customer" line where you can pay more for a shorter line with faster service.


It would be much easier to discuss the topic, Net Neutrality, than to try to shoot down some strawman comparison.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

phrelin said:


> Yes, for consumers it's downhill. Yes, for consumers it's likely to be similar to the time when C-band open feeds slowly disappeared and create-your-own package options became package options: not-very-expensive, expensive, very-expensive, outrageously-expensive. Then the international media conglomerates bought up most channels after creating a number of their own. And just like most of this forum's members won't read this thread, within a decade most Americans will think Netflix, HULU+, etc., at $43.99 a month each is outrageous not because of Comcast, Disney, News Corp, etc., and the government but because of Netfix management. And they certainly won't think it's their fault because they thought the important issues in the 2014 Congressional elections were gay rights and Obamacare and voted accordingly.
> But international conglomerates are just greedy selfish persons too....


In ten years I would have no problem paying $43.99 a month for my viewing needs.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> In ten years I would have no problem paying $43.99 a month for my viewing needs.


Maybe, but what is being sorted out right now is "exclusive" licensing for content. One could easily end up having to subscribe to four "bundlers" at $43.99 each to watch the shows you want to see. Somehow I think there is every possibility it won't look to our budgets any different than the cable packages we're faced with right now. Of course that's a prediction 10 years out, so maybe they'll be sending it straight to our brains.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

James Long said:


> It would be much easier to discuss the topic, Net Neutrality, than to try to shoot down some strawman comparison.


We're kind of forced into trying to find examples because the whole naming "net neutrality" is vague. It doesn't seem to mean what the two words usually mean, when associated with the FCC and the internet.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Perhaps, a glimmer of hope for a open internet:
FCC chair responds to net neutrality backlash:* 'I could not agree with you more'*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/09/fcc-chair-responds-to-net-neutrality-backlash-i-could-not-agree-with-you-more/


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Awesome, let's hope this is for the better.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The devil is always in the details and always is an office holder speaking in sound bites. From SiliconBeat on SiliconValley.com, the Silicon Valley Mercury News tech website



> "There is one Internet. It must be fast, it must be robust, and it must be open," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said this morning. And with that, the FCC voted to move forward with a plan that will make the Internet less open.
> 
> This is the kind of doublespeak Wheeler has engaged in since early details of his net neutrality plan have emerged - and alarmed big tech companies, startups, venture capitalists, advocacy groups and others, who have spoken out in hopes of saving the open Internet. Despite seemingly contradictory language in a fact sheet put out by the FCC, the plan by Wheeler, who got the 3-2 vote he needed today, would allow broadband providers to charge content providers for faster delivery of their offerings. This is being commonly referred to as the creation of Internet fast lanes. But Wheeler says those broadband companies won't be allowed to block or slow network traffic.
> 
> ...The vote today opens the door for what's effectively four months of public comment. That does provide some room for optimism, for those who are in to that sort of thing. For example, the agency says it will ask the public whether "paid prioritization should be banned outright." It's also opening up the discussion of whether broadband should be treated like a utility, which would pave the way for FCC regulation with teeth. (That's the reason Wheeler is proposing these new rules: Other FCC attempts to enforce net neutrality have been struck down in court because the agency lacked clear authority.) Those who are campaigning for net neutrality are pushing for broadband to be reclassified as a "common carrier."


The "fast lane" metaphor is almost correct. Imagine an existing one-lane highway. Traffic has slowed to a crawl because it is quadruple what the lane can effectively carry. So "they" build a toll-road fast lane. Only to be sure it works for those who will pay the toll, the fast lane is six-vehicles wide and "they" paint some dots along the full length showing drivers that it is wide so you can go around slower drivers using it. But only if you pay the toll.

"They" didn't block the slow lane. "They" didn't slow the slow lane. In fact "they" are required to allow more and more traffic on the slow lane. And "they" will be happy to take the toll from any driver who wants to use the fast lane.

And that's exactly the spin Wheeler offers in his letter: "I will not allow some companies to force Internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges can have superior service." The companies aren't forcing users into anything. And they are creating a superior service for those who are willing to pay for locating and maintaining dedicated servers inside their infrastructure.

All that means is that if the movie you want to see is through Netflix which pays the ISP's for those dedicated servers, you will get sufficient speed. If the movie is through a small, independent source that can't afford to pay every ISP ...well ... remember you weren't forced into the slow lane when you see this:


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Interesting article on CNET on this.

http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703&ttag=e703&ftag=CAD090e536


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

trh said:


> Interesting article on CNET on this.
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/?tag=nl.e703&s_cid=e703&ttag=e703&ftag=CAD090e536


It's a good article. Her description of the financial battle that's going on is excellent. And you get a complete picture of the economic environment in which the regulators are supposed to be functioning.

But in a sense, she has avoided the thorny question I ask: "What does it all mean for me?"

None of the players, including the FCC, discussed in the article prints money - the Federal Reserve isn't involved. All of the players, including the FCC, get their money from me and you. That includes Netflix and Comcast, both of whom pretend the extra costs are only of concern to the corporation's cash drawer.

It's my money that pays the ISP charge and the Netflix membership. And I do not want my money used in a way that gives priority to wealthy major corporations.

I don't care if Netflix is used by millions of Americans. I do not want my money used to build infrastructure to give Netflix traffic priority over the 10 Best Free Movie Streaming Sites. If after I'm dead one of my granddaughters experiences a period of "tight money" in her life, even if she has to put up with ads, I want to be sure that she can access those free sites and receive the packets of data at exactly the same speed that the richer family on the other side of town gets packets from Netflix.

This is really the turning point as far as I'm can tell. Do we treat the ISP company like a pre-1980 regulated copper wire phone company required to provide essentially the same service to everyone at carefully regulated prices? Or do we treat them like the 2014 cellular phone companies that provide crappy service in my area but provide good service in other areas and great service in wealthy suburban communities using a pricing structure that excludes those with low incomes from many services?

It is too easy to get bogged down in the technology and financial issues and lose sight of the socioeconomic implications.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

And the fun story today is from here:



> "If it bothers you that I'm doing this, I want to point out that everyone is going to be doing crap like this after the FCC rips apart net neutrality."
> 
> - Kyle Drake, a software developer in Portland who has written code that some websites are using to slow down traffic if anyone from the Federal Communications Commission happens to visit. Drake is among the many protesters of a new plan the FCC voted to set in motion Thursday. If enacted, it would make more common different speeds of online access that depend on whether a content provider has paid a broadband company. In a blog post, Drake asks the FCC to pay $1,000 a year to get rid of the throttling.


----------



## Joe Tylman (Dec 13, 2012)

I'll help you out phrelin

And the fun story today is http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/03/318458496/john-oliver-helps-rally-45-000-net-neutrality-comments-to-fcc



> Things are running smoothly now, but the Federal Communications Commission's public commenting system was so waylaid by people writing in on Monday that the agency had to send out a few tweets saying "technical difficulties" due to heavy traffic affected its servers.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

So could someone here answer these simple questions for me who doesn't feel like reading huge articles and documents about an explanation. Now that it looks like net neutrality is official. 

Will there no longer be bandwidth caps on isp's or cell phone providers?

Will internet prices increase?

Will innovation and infrastructure upgrades happen less?

Will Internet speeds decrease?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Those aren't simple questions.

Not being a smart-ass, seriously, those aren't simple questions with or without net neutrality.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

And any answer would be pure speculation.


----------

