Tech Companies Plan To Fight For Net Neutrality (Again) On July 12

[Guest]

Some of the world's largest tech companies are preparing to stand up for net neutrality...again.

Tech Companies Plan To Fight For Net Neutrality (Again) On July 12 : Read more

 

[Urzu1000]

I don't see Tom's Hardware listed on the notable participants page.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Loosely defined, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn't be able to discriminate between data sources. The go-to example is the threat of tiered internet packages that would require you to pay extra for access to streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and so on. Other worries include the potential for premium lanes, which would see ISPs charge high-traffic companies for speedy data delivery to their customers, and giving ISP-offered services a leg up on the competition by offering free access to them or boosting their data transfer speeds.

Put another way: a byte is a byte is a byte, and expecting people to pay more for data simply because it comes from a particular source defies the idea of the open Web.

Loosely defined. yes, this is good. But... the devil is in the details. Before we agree and jump on any "net neutrality" rules, guidelines, laws, etc, we should look closely at the language used. Look closely at any addendum attached., everything about it. What may appear to be net neutrality may ultimately contain things that undermine the premise of the rules or outright make it mean something the summary does not imply. This actually is a good idea for whatever bill, rules, regulations, etc may come up. It's part of a good democratic view, where you can express to your representatives (who may do as they please anyway, which is a problem you can try to remedy on election day) what you think about it and anything else added to it. Of course it can't be "You got to vote on it before you can see what it says and is" as that defeats any transparency. If these representatives of ours are as transparent as they claim, as in our corner as they preach throughout their (re)election campaigns, they should have no qualms as letting us see the actual legislation, rules, etc they will vote on, unaltered and verbatim.

What do we have pay, for their version of net neutrality, vs the version of net neutrality they sell us?

 

[JonDol]

I don't see Tom's Hardware listed on the notable participants page.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants

Maybe because it's not a notable participant? Not under their criteria anyways.

 

[JonDol]

Everyone should be with this action. If snooping on peoples data traffic is not stopped once for all, other countries could see their net neutrality harmed as well.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Everyone should be with this action. If snooping on peoples data traffic is not stopped once for all, other countries could see their net neutrality harmed as well.

Did it really stop snooping on peoples data traffic? What did the complete unaltered rules say?

 

[theyeti87]

"I'm sorry. The domain you are trying to access is not within your Internet Plan. Please upgrade your current Internet Plan to access the website."

 

[bit_user]

Everyone should be with this action. If snooping on peoples data traffic is not stopped once for all, other countries could see their net neutrality harmed as well.

Did it really stop snooping on peoples data traffic?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure snooping was covered under a separate FCC rule that was recently struck down before it went into effect.

It was a good rule, but separate from NN.

 

[gnarly_90]

We already have tiered access packages. What we don't have is an effictive way for the ISP's to charge back to the companies riding on their consumer focused access packages. There is a reason the big iNet services companies (Facebook, google MSFT etc) want this, and its not because its good for you. They don't want to be charged back by ISP's for delivering their content to the end user. They only want to pay for circuits that leave their DC's and trunk to the local PAIX. Please don't fall for the false altruistic premise here folks.

 

[bit_user]

What we don't have is an effictive way for the ISP's to charge back to the companies riding on their consumer focused access packages.

It's like saying my electric company should have a way of charging LG for "riding on" my consumer electricity delivery to power my LG TV. They're not "riding on" my internet, it's me using my internet to access the the products and services I want.


And what consumers use should be paid for by them in a clear and direct way, so that promotions, subsidies, and extra fees can't be used by ISPs to distort the marketplace.

 

[coolitic]

While the *idea* of "net neutrality" is great, I am quite uncomfortable with this implementation as it gives the FCC more power and they don't have a good track record for going against monopolies.

 

[dE_logics]

The problem with Trumph is -- he doesn't understand anything other than money.

 

[grimfox]

While the *idea* of "net neutrality" is great, I am quite uncomfortable with this implementation as it gives the FCC more power and they don't have a good track record for going against monopolies.

I don't disagree with you in that FCC may not be the best choice for defending consumers from the malicious practices and policies of ISPs. However, rolling back the rules without ensuring there is some sort of framework in place to continue to defend consumers is irresponsible. I believe that the FTC, who would be the more appropriate regulatory body, is not capable or ready to take on this task if the FCC drops it now. At the very least there needs to be more planning and preparation before ending the existing rules.

 

[dorsai]

"Facebook, Google, and other companies have all pledged their support..."

Well of course they have....since their entire business model rests on you paying a monthly internet bill to access their service...essentially they get a free ride on your internet platform (ISP) and on your dime...and in exchange you volunteer to give up gigabytes of personal data for free to companies like Facebook and Google. The IRONY here is people turning a blind eye to the outrageous invasion into, and collection of, personal information undertaken daily by the very companies protesting someone else wanting a piece of their action.

 

[kuyeda]

For those people saying the big tech companies are riding free on the ISP's, I just want to say that you're wrong. The tech companies are already paying their ISPs to hook up their servers to the internet; likewise, consumers are paying their ISPs to hook up their computers to the internet. From that point, the web should be *neutral*; no one should have to pay again to give or receive data. The ISPs want to create tolls between different parts of the internet, so if tech company XYZ wants customers in ISP ABC's network to be able to communicate with their servers, tech company XYZ has to pay ISP ABC *in addition* to their own ISP. ISPs already charge consumers based on the speed of their connection and many have data caps to go along with that; so arguments about bandwidth usage are red herrings too. This is all about ISPs wanting to milk more money out of their existing networks.

 

[kuyeda]

For those people saying the big tech companies are riding free on the ISP's, I just want to say that you're wrong. The tech companies are already paying their ISPs to hook up their servers to the internet; likewise, consumers are paying their ISPs to hook up their computers to the internet. From that point, the web should be *neutral*; no one should have to pay again to give or receive data. The ISPs want to create tolls between different parts of the internet, so if tech company XYZ wants customers in ISP ABC's network to be able to communicate with their servers, tech company XYZ has to pay ISP ABC *in addition* to their own ISP. ISPs already charge consumers based on the speed of their connection and many have data caps to go along with that; so arguments about bandwidth usage are red herrings too. This is all about ISPs wanting to milk more money out of their existing networks.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

Reddit already has intentional slowdowns today and you'll notice the top-left corner logo becomes all pixelated when loading intentionally.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

While the *idea* of "net neutrality" is great, I am quite uncomfortable with this implementation as it gives the FCC more power and they don't have a good track record for going against monopolies.

I don't disagree with you in that FCC may not be the best choice for defending consumers from the malicious practices and policies of ISPs. However, rolling back the rules without ensuring there is some sort of framework in place to continue to defend consumers is irresponsible. I believe that the FTC, who would be the more appropriate regulatory body, is not capable or ready to take on this task if the FCC drops it now. At the very least there needs to be more planning and preparation before ending the existing rules.

The rules, while defined, never were implemented into active service. They were scheduled to, but the cancellations/retractions have been placed into effect before they were scheduled to go active.

 

[husker]

When a casino adds new rules to any table game (e.g. blackjack), you'd better believe the odds just got worse for you - but they pitch it to you as giving you more chances to win. This whole net neutrality thing smells like the same kind of snake oil.

 

[bit_user]

"Facebook, Google, and other companies have all pledged their support..."

Well of course they have....since their entire business model rests on you paying a monthly internet bill to access their service...essentially they get a free ride on your internet platform (ISP) and on your dime...and in exchange you volunteer to give up gigabytes of personal data for free to companies like Facebook and Google.

Wow, you're simultaneously criticizing Internet application providers for not subsidizing access and criticizing the business model for the services they do provide? Sorta cognitive dissonance.

I don't see the problem with the current division between ISPs providing infrastructure and Google, FB, and Amazon providing applications. I think we want that. What we don't want is vertically-integrated Silos, where you have to choose your preferred web apps when you pick your ISP. They should be decoupled - otherwise it's like having to choose which brand of gasoline you buy, when choosing an automobile.

The IRONY here is people turning a blind eye to the outrageous invasion into, and collection of, personal information undertaken daily by the very companies protesting someone else wanting a piece of their action.

No, it's not ironic. Don't try to pretend that a single regulation can fix everything wrong with the Internet. Net Neutrality is focused on network access & infrastructure issue. Data privacy is important, but it's a separate issue that can be addressed through separate regulations or legislation.

 

[bit_user]

When a casino adds new rules to any table game (e.g. blackjack), you'd better believe the odds just got worse for you - but they pitch it to you as giving you more chances to win. This whole net neutrality thing smells like the same kind of snake oil.

So, you're saying that basically having any rules on what ISPs can do is bad, because somehow it'll be worse for the consumer than having no limits on their power?

I rather think there are good laws, bad laws, and some in between. If you want better laws (and fewer bad ones), then educate yourself on the issues and the bills, then contact your congressmen and donate to the ones that vote how you want (and against those that don't, when they're up for re-election). If you can find a PAC that aligns with your views, that can greatly simplify the process.

 

[husker]

ANONYMOUS SAID:
When a casino adds new rules to any table game (e.g. blackjack), you'd better believe the odds just got worse for you - but they pitch it to you as giving you more chances to win. This whole net neutrality thing smells like the same kind of snake oil.

So, you're saying that basically having any rules on what ISPs can do is bad, because somehow it'll be worse for the consumer than having no limits on their power?

I rather think there are good laws, bad laws, and some in between. If you want better laws (and fewer bad ones), then educate yourself on the issues and the bills, then contact your congressmen and donate to the ones that vote how you want (and against those that don't, when they're up for re-election). If you can find a PAC that aligns with your views, that can greatly simplify the process.
0

------------------------------------

Not exactly. The internet has evolved under a set of rules that allowed it grow into a new fundamental requirement of modern life. When new rules are added to a system that has been working just fine under its existing rules (and there are existing rules), then somebody is probably paying a lot of money to get these rules added. If you think it's all for the good of humanity and nobody's got any profit to make as a result of changing how it works, then we are just living in two different worlds.

 

[bit_user]

Not exactly. The internet has evolved under a set of rules that allowed it grow into a new fundamental requirement of modern life.

But the kinds of things Net Neutrality protects were de facto assumptions, when the net started out, because the necessary technology and industries didn't exist for doing otherwise.

It's like you're saying that a village with farmers and horse-drawn carts shouldn't need any new laws or regulations as it grows into a city with cars, and then a mega-city with interstate highways, bridges, tunnels, etc.

When new rules are added to a system that has been working just fine under its existing rules (and there are existing rules),

It's not woking fine when my ISP decides they want to block my torrents. And, in the years leading up to its existence, the main thing that's kept ISPs from charging upstream entities is probably the threat of something like Net Neutrality. But by explicitly rescinding NN, what the government is basically doing is removing that threat and giving a green light for ISPs to misbehave as badly as they want to.

then somebody is probably paying a lot of money to get these rules added.

Government exists as a way for the people to collectively decide & implement rules that are best for society. In a capitalist system, it needs to be the ultimate check on the market, which would otherwise turn from serving the public to feeding off them. The point of capitalism is to harness the power of greed for the public good. But if you remove the reigns, then it just becomes a feeding frenzy with the average citizen at the bottom of the food chain.

If you think it's all for the good of humanity and nobody's got any profit to make as a result of changing how it works, then we are just living in two different worlds.

Markets always adapt. Someone often stands to benefit from just about any change in equilibrium, but that doesn't mean the change itself is necessarily a corrupt or a bad one. The best way to get good rules, regulations, and laws from government is to promote transparency and protect them from the influence of the legalized form of bribery known as campaign finance.

Also, the idea of having bureaucrats involved in crafting and enforcing regulations is another tool for insulating government from manipulations by market players. I think this is why so many free market fundamentalists rail against "un-elected bureaucrats". They're upset by the limits of their abilities to manipulate them to the same extent they've evolved to manipulate elected officials.

A lot of people succumb to the terminal cynicism you're channeling. "Government is the problem." Well, when government is the only tool we have to control these mega-corporations, giving up on the potential of government to act in the interests of the people is pretty much the worst thing you can do.

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Government exists as a way for the people to collectively decide & implement rules that are best for society. In a capitalist system, it needs to be the ultimate check on the market, which would otherwise turn from serving the public to feeding off them. The point of capitalism is to harness the power of greed for the public good. But if you remove the reigns, then it just becomes a feeding frenzy with the average citizen at the bottom of the food chain.

Ideally, yes. But in reality no. If it was so, we would never have revolutions, coups, etc. Reality is Governments tend to start thinking more about itself than its people. Its one of the major reasons the founding fathers of the United States wanted minimal government at the federal level.

 

[bit_user]

Ideally, yes. But in reality no. If it was so, we would never have revolutions, coups, etc. Reality is Governments tend to start thinking more about itself than its people. Its one of the major reasons the founding fathers of the United States wanted minimal government at the federal level.

Sure, power corrupts and all that. Building and retaining good & responsive government is hard. They used what tools they had at their disposal, such as empowering the press and limiting the power of any one individual. That's how they hoped to achieve transparency, accountability, and honesty.

However, we now have tools beyond their wildest dreams, like blockchain. What if it were used for all civil government expenditures?