Have We Already Lost The Battle For Net Neutrality? (Op Ed)

[izmanq]

i thought US is under democratic rules, so people's voice rules, i guess not so much, more like corporate money talks, and now sounds like the people just let go their freedom, give it to those corporates

 

[rkhalloran]

The Internet has been based on the idea that everyone pays for their connection *to* the Net and the traffic all balances out over time. Now the major consumer ISPs want to charge the consumers for their connection *AND* charge the major content providers to reach those consumers. Those smaller companies or startups that can't get slower-speed access to those consumers.

It's pretty well documented that Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix' bandwidth into their network before demanding the 'consumer toll' they recently got (going over a VPN that masked the target got full-speed connections for consumers: http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080). Of course this tactic ends up meaning Netflix raises their rates to us, which makes them less attractive, which these companies probably prefer to avoid the cord-cutters going Internet-only and dropping the TV and video-on-demand service that are so profitable for them.

While I dislike government intervention, this is clearly anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs, which will throttle innovation and startups unable to cough up for the "preferred access" the ISPs would demand. The FCC is concerned about the potential lawsuits by said ISPs (and probably their cushy post-government consulting gigs); my response would be, to riff on the Duke of Wellington's famous comment, "Regulate and be damned!"

 

[rkhalloran]

The Internet has been based on the idea that everyone pays for their connection *to* the Net and the traffic all balances out over time. Now the major consumer ISPs want to charge the consumers for their connection *AND* charge the major content providers to reach those consumers. Those smaller companies or startups that can't get slower-speed access to those consumers.

It's pretty well documented that Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix' bandwidth into their network before demanding the 'consumer toll' they recently got (going over a VPN that masked the target got full-speed connections for consumers: http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080). Of course this tactic ends up meaning Netflix raises their rates to us, which makes them less attractive, which these companies probably prefer to avoid the cord-cutters going Internet-only and dropping the TV and video-on-demand service that are so profitable for them.

While I dislike government intervention, this is clearly anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs, which will throttle innovation and startups unable to cough up for the "preferred access" the ISPs would demand. The FCC is concerned about the potential lawsuits by said ISPs (and probably their cushy post-government consulting gigs); my response would be, to riff on the Duke of Wellington's famous comment, "Regulate and be damned!"

 

[Christopher1]

While I dislike government intervention, this is clearly anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs, which will throttle innovation and startups unable to cough up for the "preferred access" the ISPs would demand. The FCC is concerned about the potential lawsuits by said ISPs (and probably their cushy post-government consulting gigs); my response would be, to riff on the Duke of Wellington's famous comment, "Regulate and be damned!"

Agreed, this IS anti-competitive behavior that should be regulated out of existence. The problem is that numerous companies will "WAH WAH WAH!" to their mostly Republican congressmen (This is a case where the partisan bash is warranted) and the Congressmen will moan and groan to keep the FCC from doing what is necessary.
That is? Putting into place strict and stern protections ixnay'ing this stuff, by putting Title II into place.

 

[DasBoot]

Anyone seen this article yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/?partner=yahootix

Net neutrality wasn't lost.
Does it appear that we were lied to and just jumped on the bandwagon?

 

[alextheblue]

Anyone seen this article yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/?partner=yahootix

Net neutrality wasn't lost.
Does it appear that we were lied to and just jumped on the bandwagon?

Good read. Yep. Wholesale lying, especially on the part of Netflix and Cogent. I'm no fan of Comcast, but it looks like it wasn't their fault from the start, and now the Feds are looking to use these lies as an excuse to regulate the internet. Typical... they lie their butts off and use fear to seize more power.

 

[PhilipC]

NET NEUTRALITY and ISP LIMITATIONS:
(A) SET BY COMPETITORS
or
(B) SET BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORS?
I want as little limitations by my ISP just like everyone else, but I think the limitations that ISPs put on their customers should GOVERNED by market conditions and by competitors, not the government and 5 unelected officials. Right now, can you point to any consumers who are currently being harmed without net neutrality? An ISP competitor can change their customer policy overnight if you scream loud enough, or even faster and better, switch to another competitor. A government regulator will almost always take a long time to change their vote, and that vote will be after lots of money, discussions, closed door meetings, lobbyists, etc..

QUESTION:
If you think the Internet should be a public utility, can you name me a utility or service used by the general public on a large scale where the government and unelected government officials ultimately made things better, via more regulations, for the general public and promoted competition and innovation?

MORE THOUGHTS on MY FACEBOOK POST.
http://tinyurl.com/n7tc88f

 

[junkeymonkey]

back in the old days when the U.S was strong powerful and rich all was regulated then around early 70's or so they pushed all the deregulation and look how it is now.. plus the civil rights movement did the most damage just lok at pre and post history on that and how we stood in the world

 

[tomc100]

tomc, that's the problem--there will be no competition since there is no way the infrastructure can support multiple cable companies. Same reason why there is one set of roads, one gas line, and one electrical grid. What would happen suddenly electricity costs climbed to a Dollar a kW/hr, or if gas and water prices double and there was a toll to even leave your driveway? That's the point-- that can't happen since they are classified as public utilities, and the goal of the FCC is to establish the internet as such. This shouldn't be a partisan issue (thanks, Ted Cruz).

So you're asking that there should be only one ISP? Why can't the infrastructure support multiple cable companies? Maybe I'm ignorant about these things but in some areas the only choice you have is Comcast which is why their customer support is one of the worst of any company in the country. I think the state or federal government can set up their own ISP and charge a competitive price just like the US postal service competes against UPS, DHL, Federal Express. Maybe you have more trust in the federal government to regulate but I have found politicians, bureaucrats, and everything they touch to be corrupt to the core. In order to become an ISP, you need to launch a $100 million satellite into orbit and use existing radio towers to transmit to clients. It won't be as fast as direct cable but it's better than dial up. The biggest obstacle to starting a new ISP is the initial capital and the burdensome regulations which won't be a problem for the federal government if they didn't waste it on stupid foreign aid and other fraud. Rather than have the federal government regulate private businesses they should compete with them. They even might make a profit if they hired mostly temps and didn't have pensions or benefits for employees.

 

[Zeroplanetz]

I hate ISP's All they are suppose to do is provide an open access to my internet. If Im paying for a certain plan then by god give me access to any web page I go to at my paying speeds. But where they get you is when it says UP TO which means youll never reach those speeds and if you do its because a website company has paid for it. `I hate those who are in charge.

 

[atavax]

The public has to accept that Net Neutrality isn't feasible for it to be over. It isn't the FCC vs ISP. Its General Public vs ISP. I don't care how many suits the ISPs create, as long as the pro net neutrality side stays resolute and stays large, eventually the government will have to force net neutrality. It is ISPs postponing the inevitable. There is no quelling the demand for net neutrality.

 

[DasBoot]

I hate ISP's All they are suppose to do is provide an open access to my internet. If Im paying for a certain plan then by god give me access to any web page I go to at my paying speeds. But where they get you is when it says UP TO which means youll never reach those speeds and if you do its because a website company has paid for it. `I hate those who are in charge.

Do you understand the data you get back when you do a traceroute?

Your ISP does have a demarc.
It doesn't extend to every router on the planet.

 

[wiyosaya]

One issue that is ignored here is where does the federal government get the power to interfere in private enterprise? The internet infrastructure was built predominantly with billions of dollars of private investment. The internet is not public property.

As to why the government needs to be involved? How about an analogy? By your reasoning, we should let companies who make medicines or vaccines just put their products on the market, yes, as that damn government interferes in the ability of those companies to put their products on the market and make money off of them.

Or perhaps there should be no truth in advertising laws as what companies say in their advertisements have never been untruthful or misleading. Yes? Gee, that damn government is making companies tell the truth about their products when advertising them and interfering with private business for doing so since the companies cannot lie about their products to their customers and dupe them into a buy. Heaven forbid!!

Consistently, free enterprise has shown that it is incapable of regulating itself in a fair and impartial manner - at least as I see it.

 

[wiyosaya]

The Internet has been based on the idea that everyone pays for their connection *to* the Net and the traffic all balances out over time. Now the major consumer ISPs want to charge the consumers for their connection *AND* charge the major content providers to reach those consumers. Those smaller companies or startups that can't get slower-speed access to those consumers.

It's pretty well documented that Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix' bandwidth into their network before demanding the 'consumer toll' they recently got (going over a VPN that masked the target got full-speed connections for consumers: http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080). Of course this tactic ends up meaning Netflix raises their rates to us, which makes them less attractive, which these companies probably prefer to avoid the cord-cutters going Internet-only and dropping the TV and video-on-demand service that are so profitable for them.

While I dislike government intervention, this is clearly anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs, which will throttle innovation and startups unable to cough up for the "preferred access" the ISPs would demand. The FCC is concerned about the potential lawsuits by said ISPs (and probably their cushy post-government consulting gigs); my response would be, to riff on the Duke of Wellington's famous comment, "Regulate and be damned!"

As I see it, it is pretty easy to call the treatment of Netflix "extortion".

 

[wiyosaya]

The problem I have with ISPs is the fact that many still hold exclusive rights to their "area" and competition isnt allowed to come in. I have a local cable provider for my ISP and I have no other choices outside of much slower DSL. Comcast isnt around me, Verizon Fios cant come in, its just suffocating. I have no choices and since my ISP is the ONLY one anywhere in this area to start capping our data limit, its even worse. I'm an avid console and PC gamer plus a cord cutter that uses Netflix and Amazon Prime A LOT. With the digital downloads of games going up in the 60 gig range, you can imagine how fast I burn through my 450 gig cap. I also pay double what I did a year ago to get that data limit yet my speeds are about the same and the issues of peak times and slowness STILL happen even though they are curbing everyone on purpose to supposedly make it better for everyone. I've had the same quality of service since they instituted data caps that I did before everything was unlimited. One bad download of a 60 gig game and I have to download it again. I shouldnt be punished, having to pay double and possibly triple on bad months for downloads, for embracing a digital world. No other provider around me in other counties have data caps like this, but since they are a monopoly in this area with no one like Fios to come in and compete, I have no choice but to pay the fees so I can do what I want to with the "public" internet.

Unfortunately other things need to happen outside of Net Neutrality to combat this garbage from Private ISPs, Net Neutrality is great and I fully support it but its something separate unfortunately and the issues I have with private monopoly ISPs is completely different and also needs addressed

As I understand it, there are laws over 100 years old that ISPs have used to gain a monopoly in each area that they are in and these laws amount to them being treated as if they are a telco, yet the ISPs argue that they are not telcos. As I see it, people need to write their state representatives to have laws passed that prohibit this kind of abuse.

In NYS, there is at least one ISP who has won a battle with the state public service commission to provide fiber to the home despite the monopolies that exist in various regions throughout the state. When that company is in my area, my middle finger will be up at my current ISP.

 

[DasBoot]

The Internet has been based on the idea that everyone pays for their connection *to* the Net and the traffic all balances out over time. Now the major consumer ISPs want to charge the consumers for their connection *AND* charge the major content providers to reach those consumers. Those smaller companies or startups that can't get slower-speed access to those consumers.

It's pretty well documented that Comcast and Verizon throttled Netflix' bandwidth into their network before demanding the 'consumer toll' they recently got (going over a VPN that masked the target got full-speed connections for consumers: http://lifehacker.com/use-a-vpn-to-bypass-your-isps-throttling-of-netflix-or-1608538080). Of course this tactic ends up meaning Netflix raises their rates to us, which makes them less attractive, which these companies probably prefer to avoid the cord-cutters going Internet-only and dropping the TV and video-on-demand service that are so profitable for them.

While I dislike government intervention, this is clearly anti-competitive behavior by the ISPs, which will throttle innovation and startups unable to cough up for the "preferred access" the ISPs would demand. The FCC is concerned about the potential lawsuits by said ISPs (and probably their cushy post-government consulting gigs); my response would be, to riff on the Duke of Wellington's famous comment, "Regulate and be damned!"

The forbes article I quoted above pretty much disproves what Netflix has been saying all along.
It was their own ISP doing the throttling not the consumer's ISP.
And in the case of Comcast, they are currently being held to net neutrality rules as a result of the NBC deal and I believe that is in effect until 2018.

 

[johnleeb]

The it is time for a class action suit from all of the users! It was built with our money, where taxes paid for the initial investments, and part of our payments for service were used to pay for the current high speed lines and equipment improvements. The "ownership" the line controllers are claiming is a huge pile of dung!

 

[DasBoot]

The it is time for a class action suit from all of the users! It was built with our money, where taxes paid for the initial investments, and part of our payments for service were used to pay for the current high speed lines and equipment improvements. The "ownership" the line controllers are claiming is a huge pile of dung!

I'm not sure why this is such a prevalent idea in the US.
Maybe because older telco lines were paid from tax dollars?

But in the US no fiber laid by a cable company is paid for by tax dollars.
(I'm not even sure if Verizon's fios network was partially funded via tax dollars but since Verizon is a Telco, it may be)
Unfortunately your lawsuit won't hold water in an US court.
Now I can't say the same for the EU. Those lines most likely are subsidized with public funds.