Does anyone here actually oppose Network Neutrality?

[Newtons Bit]

You see, folks?

The government won't stop at "net neutrality", and people like this will be just fine with it. They are already so accustomed to government expansion of power, they are expecting the outcome I have outlined.

So... you can't actually explain why?

 

[jakesteele]

Ron Paul does.
He doesn't post here, but I suspect many of his lemmings fans do.

As opposed to what? Hilary's left-wing lap dogs like Rachel Madsow?

 

[Francesca R]

Name a public utility that is not a local monopoly. Gas, electricity, water.

And again. Gas and electicity supply in some countries other than the US are not local monopolies. Retail supply of gas and electricity in the UK was fully opened up to competition in the 1990s, for example. Telephone is also not a local monopoly, and that was opened up to competition during the same time period.

In these retail markets the government does not set prices or even regulate prices. The suppliers are not utilities.

Only water remains a government sanctioned monopoly in the UK. Initiatives to end this have for various reasons not happened. Thus, even though water companies are private firms, the prices they can charge are set by the government regulator. They are still utilities.

Internet service providers fall into the same category as telephone, gas and electricity. Not utilities, not monopolies, no price controls imposed. And competition, which makes such controls unnecessary.

(I would say that if a supply is a protected monopoly then a government should regulate prices. A far better policy route is to stop supply being a monopoly. Which is not what net neutrality does.)

 

[Nihilianth]

(I would say that if a supply is a protected monopoly then a government should regulate prices. A far better policy route is to stop supply being a monopoly. Which is not what net neutrality does.)

That's right: Because the supply of content provision is most definitely NOT a monopoly. And it is never going to be. That's what NN does.

 

[xjx388]

Someone help me with this one:

ISP=Cable company?
HBO=Netflix?

If so, then isn't NN basically the equivalent of forcing every cable company to carry every channel at full capability? We don't currently do that to cable companies so under what theory should we do that with ISPs?

 

[Tony Stark]

Someone help me with this one:

ISP=Cable company?
HBO=Netflix?

If so, then isn't NN basically the equivalent of forcing every cable company to carry every channel at full capability? We don't currently do that to cable companies so under what theory should we do that with ISPs?

Your entire premise is wrong.

Cable company=Netflix

 

[xjx388]

Your entire premise is wrong.

Cable company=Netflix

How?

 

[Tony Stark]

How?

Cable company=content provider
Neflix=content provider

 

[xjx388]

Cable company=content provider
Neflix=content provider

So then what's the ISP equivalent?

 

[Tony Stark]

So then what's the ISP equivalent?

There is none. ISPs (at least the cable ones) fill both roles. Allowing them to determine what data reaches its customers is insane and serves nobody but them.

 

[xjx388]

There is none. ISPs (at least the cable ones) fill both roles. Allowing them to determine what data reaches its customers is insane and serves nobody but them.

I don't think you've got that right...

DirectTV is my Television Service Provider. They choose which TV Channels reach me through their service and it is not every single TV network available. They negotiate contracts with networks. If the negotiations fail, no network. They arent even required to deliver every channel in HD if they don't want to; many are not available in HD.

Time Warner is my Internet Service Provider. They are (now) not allowed to choose which Content Providers reach me. They are not allowed to restrict the bandwidth.

My basic question is why should ISPs be thusly restricted but not TSPs?

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't think you've got that right...

DirectTV is my Television Service Provider. They choose which TV Channels reach me through their service and it is not every single TV network available. They negotiate contracts with networks. If the negotiations fail, no network. They arent even required to deliver every channel in HD if they don't want to; many are not available in HD.

Time Warner is my Internet Service Provider. They are (now) not allowed to choose which Content Providers reach me. They are not allowed to restrict the bandwidth.

My basic question is why should ISPs be thusly restricted but not TSPs?

Because allowing Time Warner Cable and Comcast to control the Internet is insane and serves nobody but them.

Anyway, go cry to Mitch McConnell, but recognize the fact that there is zero he can do.

 

[Babbylonian]

It's always about video. Yes, net neutrality is important to provide open competition in that area but I'm just as concerned about every other form of data.

I've asked this before: What if an ISP decided to charge a customer extra for using a VPN (virtual private network)? Without net neutrality, where ISPs are common carriers, this is the kind of move they can make. They could charge extra for Bit Torrent traffic, block/slow traffic to and from websites that they don't like, etc.

Another thing I've said before: If they want the advantages of being common carriers (most importantly, virtually no liability for the data transmitted via their networks) then, barring emergencies/national security issues, they should be compelled to treat all data the same.

 

[lomiller]

Nor with them.

With net neutrality multiple ISP's is certainly a possibility. NN requires that any node can send packets freely to any other node and therefore anyone is free to set their own ISP and their clients will have access to anything a client of any other ISP can access.

Without NN, this isn't the case, so how exactly could you get "competing ISP"?

Perhaps you can report back when choice of ISP multiplies in the US directly due to these rules.

NN merely codifies the principles that connected private network providers to begin with so all ISP's exist because of these rules. Without it they are just private network providers, and we already know from experience that model doesn't work.

 

[lomiller]

I have a choice of about 6 gas suppliers, 10 electric suppliers, and about ten phone and/or net suppliers. And I only have one set of cables/pipes.

How different would that situation be if anyone who's infrastructure the gas or electricity passed though could see where it came from a and block or restrict it if it didn't come from their gas well or power plant?

Unlike gas or electricity, with data it's possible to see exactly where it originated and exactly where it's going and treat it differently based on that information. All NN does is prohibit this and put data on a similar footing to gas/electricity where you admit things work.

 

[Nihilianth]

I don't think you've got that right...

DirectTV is my Television Service Provider. They choose which TV Channels reach me through their service and it is not every single TV network available. They negotiate contracts with networks. If the negotiations fail, no network. They arent even required to deliver every channel in HD if they don't want to; many are not available in HD.

Time Warner is my Internet Service Provider. They are (now) not allowed to choose which Content Providers reach me. They are not allowed to restrict the bandwidth.

My basic question is why should ISPs be thusly restricted but not TSPs?

"The internet" is not the same as "television networks." Internet content providers do not operate on the same basis as a television network. Everyone has a voice on the internet. And very, very few people get paid to express their viewpoints. It is, essentially, an open, democratic forum.

It;s more like....I own a phone. My sister owns a phone. Even though we both go through different companies for that service, I can still make a call to her. Neither my phone company, nor her phone company, can deny that phone call. They cannot tell me whom I can or cannot call. I own a phone for a reason: To be able to make phone calls and communicate practically instaneously from a different locale from the one I am calling.

With the internet, I get to choose how I use that service. I am paying for the service. I expect to be able to use it how I wish.

Obviously, hone service is different from internet service. It actually does, physically, cost the phone company for a customer to make an out-of-network phone call. So naturally they should be able to recoup some of that cost.

With the ISP, there is no "network" that they specifically own. It is just "The Internet!" THAT is what I am paying for as a customer! They don't get to restrict content that I want to receive. That is not their right, nor has never been their right. That is virtually illegal in virtually every single other industry. You cannot restrict what a customer pays for after they have paid an agreed upon price for it. If a customer agrees to purchase a gallon on milk from a grocery store, the store does not get to dump or water down that milk. If I agree to pay a particular price to an ISP for "The Internet," I expect to receive "The Internet." In it's entirety. I am, afterall, paying for "The Internet!"

Now, I can see an argument to be made for throttling different data TYPES. For instance, streaming video is more taxing on Comcast's hardware than visiting a forum. But if Comcast must throttle streaming videos, they must throttle ALL providers of streaming video equally. Netflix doesn't get any preferential treatment over Youtube, for instance. That argument I could accept. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least it makes logical sense, and is entirely fair among all content providers. But the problem lies in the fact that if I agree to pay a particular price for a particular speed to access "The Internet," I fully expect the speed which I agreed to pay to for! If I pay 100 MB/s, I expect 100 MB/s. (Actual technical issues, as always, notwithstanding.)

 

[The Don]

And again. Gas and electicity supply in some countries other than the US are not local monopolies. Retail supply of gas and electricity in the UK was fully opened up to competition in the 1990s, for example. Telephone is also not a local monopoly, and that was opened up to competition during the same time period.

You're absolutely right that we're free to choose our service providers and there seems to be effective competition.

The issue is that, for most people in most places, the infrastructure provider is a monopoly. Our community has been without phone or broadband for nearly a month now. We're on different service providers but we're all completely hamstrung by BT Openreach's inability and/or unwilingness to address a line fault.

For NN to work, there has to be a decent infrastructure


edited to add....

I cannot make a choice of provider which gets around the basic issue here, the frailty and lack of performance in the infrastructure.

 

[Francesca R]

You're absolutely right that we're free to choose our service providers and there seems to be effective competition.

The issue is that, for most people in most places, the infrastructure provider is a monopoly.

Which is why the infrastructure is, and should be, a utility (as in National Grid, Openreach). And this was never in dispute. Not from me anyway.

But that is not the same thing as N-power, EON, M&S Energy . . . .or TalkTalk, EE, Sky being utilities.

 

[Francesca R]

isn't NN basically the equivalent of forcing every cable company to carry every channel at full capability? We don't currently do that to cable companies so under what theory should we do that with ISPs?

The issue is ISPs own infrastructure as well as provide service. And zero attempt is being made to copy the model of separately regulating the ownership of infrastructure from the regulation of service provision.

Content provision is a red herring in this debate. That is not being regulated by NN.

It still appears that most proponents and opponents of network neutrality simply do not understand what it is.

 

[Francesca R]

How different would that situation be if anyone who's infrastructure the gas or electricity passed though could see where it came from a and block or restrict it if it didn't come from their gas well or power plant?

You think gas and electricity suppliers do not know where they get the energy from? Perhaps you should research energy retailing. Fixed line telephony providers certainly know where calls are originating from.

And none of the above are neutral or have to be neutral to origination point. It would rather destroy their ability to compete if they did have to.

And that is the route whereby NN may actively stifle ISP competition. It's a near monopoly now (in the US) and it is more likely to stay that way. Many people apparently either do not care, or are resigned to this. Because it's America, or something.


(You actually made the comment about whether the infrastructure owner could restrict access. But of course I have forever been stating that the infrastructure owner should have and does have utility service requirements)