View Full Version : Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet
theGinsue
11-10-2014, 21:04
Thoughts & opinions on this?
Source: http://www.droid-life.com/2014/11/10/obama-fcc-net-neutrality-title-ii-mobile/
Obama Urges FCC to Re-Classify Internet Under Title II to Keep It “Open and Free,” Include Mobile Broadband
Thanks in part to 4 million comments by the American people, President Barack Obama and the White House released a statement this morning in favor of net neutrality and keeping the internet “open and free.” His stance is that the internet is “essential” to our economy, is one of the greatest “gifts” to our society, and that the FCC should reclassify it under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, essentially turning it into a utility.
President Obama outlined rules that he feels will keep the internet “open and free,” which include things like no blocking of your request to access a website or service. He is also asking that there is no throttling of content providers, increased transparency between consumers and internet service providers (ISPs), and that ISPs aren’t allowed to ask services to pay a fee to get out of “slow lanes.”
He also mentioned that internet through your mobile device should be included in these new rules, but that they should reflect the “special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.”
uKcjQPVwfDk
Watch the video above, and then be sure to read the full statement from the White House below.
An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.
“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.
The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.
The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.
To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.
The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.
I can see the potential for a lot of positives to this - if we are to believe what we're being told. The biggest thing we need to remember is this is the government meddling in something else. Government involvement eliminates free enterprise - which feeds advancements & improvements. Who among us can think of 5 unique instances where the governments involvement was ultimately positive. It's this statement that scares me the most: "the FCC should reclassify it under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, essentially turning it into a utility". Just gotta live those utility rate hikes, fees and taxes - with some of those taxes used to "being these essential utilities to the underprivileged". Welcome to the ObamaNet!
Discuss.
Net neutrality is very important.
Federal regulation of the I-net in any form will result in higher prices, slower speeds and a 2nd class system.
Why would a provider spend cash to speed up the net if they cant offer tiered services?
This is nothing more than a shot at free enterprise and could lead to cities and states building networks that will be fixed at the same bandwidth for decades.
No thanks.
theGinsue
11-10-2014, 21:17
Net neutrality is very important.
Care to expand on that!? (You know, "discussion").
That's way too much reading for me. You guys figure it out and let me know.
Care to expand on that!? (You know, "discussion").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4] Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
avandelay
11-10-2014, 21:48
Federal regulation of the I-net in any form will result in higher prices, slower speeds and a 2nd class system.
Why would a provider spend cash to speed up the net if they cant offer tiered services?
This is nothing more than a shot at free enterprise and could lead to cities and states building networks that will be fixed at the same bandwidth for decades.
No thanks.
We're from the Gov't and we're here to help the crap out of you - http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
We're from the Gov't and we're here to help the crap out of you - http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
Yup, with Net Neutrality they would not be able to get away with crap like that.
The only thing about net neutrality I agree with is that content shall never be filtered.
But charging everyone the same, regardless of usage is not in the spirit of free enterprise. If I use less bandwidth, why should I pay the same as someone using 10 times the bandwidth? If Netflix is hogging bandwidth, why shouldn't a provider be allowed to charge them more, or offer them on a faster gateway to unclog the standard gateway? Similar to paying for a better engine in a car.
Net neutrality is a socialist internet concept. Suprised anyone here would support it.
avandelay
11-10-2014, 22:14
Yup, with Net Neutrality they would not be able to get away with crap like that.
Perhaps if we got just Net Neutrality. What it appears that we're getting is bit of Net Neutrality with a big dose of Gov't control and taxation. I don't know about you, but I trust the Gov't agencies about as far as I can throw them.
The only thing about net neutrality I agree with is that content shall never be filtered.
But charging everyone the same, regardless of usage is not in the spirit of free enterprise. If I use less bandwidth, why should I pay the same as someone using 10 times the bandwidth? If Netflix is hogging bandwidth, why shouldn't a provider be allowed to charge them more, or offer them on a faster gateway to unclog the standard gateway? Similar to paying for a better engine in a car.
Net neutrality is a socialist internet concept. Suprised anyone here would support it.
The ISP can and does charge people based on the speed they offer. That is the method to throttle, not data caps. And offering services that are not subject to those caps are monopolistic behavior, which is anti-capitalist. Communists and socialists would hate Net Neutrality when the strawman arguments are dropped.
theGinsue
11-10-2014, 22:39
That's way too much reading for me. You guys figure it out and let me know.
Just quick-scan it...you'll get enough of the gist of the article in 1/4 the time/effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4] Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open Internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[5] A "closed Internet" refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content.
Yes, I'm quit aware of the definition of the concept of net neutrality. I only play dumb.
I was hoping you'd expand on why you believe it's so important and to see if you fully grasp the side effects of this concept.
Yup, with Net Neutrality they would not be able to get away with crap like that.
They can get away with anything they desire. Golden rule and all - he who has the gold makes the rules. To believe that government managed "net neutrality" would restrict the government in any way is purely naive.
As stated, Net Neutrality would upset communists and socialists, as well as those in bed with the big corporations, so how does that get interpreted as me supporting government management? Opposite day maybe?
The only thing about net neutrality I agree with is that content shall never be filtered.
But charging everyone the same, regardless of usage is not in the spirit of free enterprise. If I use less bandwidth, why should I pay the same as someone using 10 times the bandwidth? If Netflix is hogging bandwidth, why shouldn't a provider be allowed to charge them more, or offer them on a faster gateway to unclog the standard gateway? Similar to paying for a better engine in a car.
Net neutrality is a socialist internet concept. Suprised anyone here would support it.
I think you're off the mark here. Net Neutrality (as I understand it) is important because it gives me equal access to ALL internet sites. People are dropping cable and satelite providers left and right because they are tired of paying for packages in order to get channels that they want. If I could get Cartoon Network, HBO, and Comedy Central separately, I'd be happy. If I could have access to ALL channels, and only watch the ones I wanted to, I'd be even more happy. Instead, I have to pick from pre-selected packages of channels I don't care for, and have to pay for larger, even less interesting packages in order to get one or two channels that I am interested in. The internet has had a profound effect on the person I am today, and nearly everything I've learned in the past ten years has been from the internet, from sites like this, to especially Youtube. If suddenly I'm forced to pay for some internet package that has 100 sports websites that I don't give a shit about, just to have access to Youtube, saying that I would be an unhappy camper would be a grave understatement.
At this very moment I'm working out the best way I can cancel cable and switch to a net streaming box so I can have ALL the media I wish. Of course the above mentioned would quickly put an end to that.
This is one of those things that causes an strong internal war within me. I feel VERY strongly about net neutrality, but of course I feel equally as strongly about government meddling in private business. So what to do? I was one of those voices who petitioned about net neutrality, and will continue to do so because I feel strongly about it. It's a fine line though. I'm desperate to maintain the internet I have, but am not asking the government to do anything about it (although I think that last petition I e-signed is probably the same as asking for government interference). In all likelihood, if service providers do what is best for their short term profits, someone WILL come up with something else, and it will only be a matter of time. A time which everyone else must suffer.
I feel like Obama is trying to frame this issue in such a way as the government will make some sort of restriction that is as broad and as little of an interference as possible. This is a smart move as far as gaining support. People aren't okay with the government forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, but most people are perfectly okay with zoning laws preventing a company from purchasing your neighbor's house, razing it, and building a gas station in the middle of the neighborhood.
Teufelhund
11-11-2014, 00:48
Keep the gov't entirely out of it. That's how it remains "open and free." This applies to anything I can think of.
Keep the gov't entirely out of it. That's how it remains "open and free." This applies to anything I can think of.
Unfortunately not in the USA. Our infrastructure is completely monopoly based. Compare it to places like Japan, Korea, etc. We're basically operating with super expensive third-world commercialized crap. Anyone besides the big corporations that tries to get into it gets sued.
Bailey Guns
11-11-2014, 07:15
Net neutrality, without government interference, is very important.
FIFY. Why do we need the government involved in this?
Wasn't one of the original precepts of net neutrality related to content? I think I remember reading a story about a blog or website that was obviously conservative and that endorsed conservatives and the theme was something about unfair campaign practices due to the unregulated nature of the web.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 09:20
if we are to believe what we're being told.
It's this statement that scares me the most: "the FCC should reclassify it under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, essentially turning it into a utility". Just gotta live those utility rate hikes, fees and taxes - with some of those taxes used to "being these essential utilities to the underprivileged". Welcome to the ObamaNet!
Discuss.
Therein lies the rub- I don't believe them, they're out for more revenue and control (power). Oh and you covered the Socialist aspect as well- they want to re-define Net Neutrality to mean that everyone has a RIGHT to BROADBAND internet access, even if they can't afford to pay for it.
Federal regulation of the I-net in any form will result in higher prices, slower speeds and a 2nd class system.
Why would a provider spend cash to speed up the net if they cant offer tiered services?
This is nothing more than a shot at free enterprise and could lead to cities and states building networks that will be fixed at the same bandwidth for decades.
No thanks.
The only thing about net neutrality I agree with is that content shall never be filtered.
But charging everyone the same, regardless of usage is not in the spirit of free enterprise. If I use less bandwidth, why should I pay the same as someone using 10 times the bandwidth? If Netflix is hogging bandwidth, why shouldn't a provider be allowed to charge them more, or offer them on a faster gateway to unclog the standard gateway? Similar to paying for a better engine in a car.
Net neutrality is a socialist internet concept. Suprised anyone here would support it.
^^^^THIS, Internet service providers have to spend billions collectively to build, operate, expand and maintain the internet- the equipment used is VERY expensive at the data rates in the core (100Gbps+)... so to expect them to provide the service for any fixed fees (including content provider fees) will only lead to lost profit, which then leads to lost budgets, which then leads to "Third world crap"
As stated, Net Neutrality would upset communists and socialists, as well as those in bed with the big corporations, so how does that get interpreted as me supporting government management? Opposite day maybe?
Umm, since when are communists/socialists and big corporations on the same side? You seem to be somehow confused about what Net Neutrality actually means.
Unfortunately not in the USA. Our infrastructure is completely monopoly based. Compare it to places like Japan, Korea, etc. We're basically operating with super expensive third-world commercialized crap. Anyone besides the big corporations that tries to get into it gets sued.
Source?
The Infrastructure is not "Ours", it is paid for by publicly traded Corporations- so you could own part of it if you buy their stock, but the notion that the Internet infrastructure that was BOUGHT and PAID for by those publicly traded Corporations belongs to users of the internet is pretty much the definition of Communism.
One recent example that illustrates the Net Neutrality argument (as some would define it is the Netflix complaints to certain providers that they are being throttled by some ISPs, while Netflix traffic makes up around 1/3 of ALL internet traffic (including Pr0n) during peak periods.
To help illustrate, I would ask: "How many internet core routers does Netflix own?" The answer is zero.
So while there are millions of Netflix subscribers that are paying their ISPs for access to the internet, what is Netflix paying? (since they don't own the internet core)
The problem is they were only paying a handful of ISP originally, and were very slow to expand that...
Netflix attempted to address congested routes into Comcast by purchasing all available transit capacity from transit providers that did not pay access fees to Comcast—which involved agreements with Cogent, Level 3, NTT, TeliaSonera, Tata, and X0 Communications. Although all six of those providers sold transit to the entire Internet, only three of them—Cogent, Level 3, and Tata—had direct connections to Comcast’s network.Source: http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
So they chose to blame Comcast for "throttling", rather than purchasing a direct connection to Comcast in order to service their customers there... This also applied to FIOS (Verizon), Centurylink and other cable providers... it was pretty much the same story.
To summarize, if Netflix wants to use 1/3 of core internet providers available bandwidth, they should be a customer of them as well if they want ensure their service has enough internal bandwidth to support it.
The right way to handle this is to have the content moved to cache servers at the network edge, or use multicast, rather than carrying the same movie MILLIONS of times simultaneously... but the movie industry won't allow that, because they're concerned that the lower security would lead to people stealing their copyrighted property. (which is happening anyway)
So I blame the entertainment industry just as much as Netflix for the issues around their service.
I believe Netflix has been trying to implement this model by offering their content servers to be installed at ISPs "for free" (but they don't want to pay equipment co-location fees, either)... so what you hear in public isn't the full reality of what's going on between these companies.
Zundfolge
11-11-2014, 09:30
The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.
I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.
avandelay
11-11-2014, 10:27
The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.
I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.
I feel that the Net Neutrality term is being used as a sweetner to distract the people while the net is moved under gov't control and the FCC taxes the hell out of it to get the $8bn in new taxes to pay for 'free' WiFi.
HoneyBadger
11-11-2014, 11:52
From http://wearelibertarians.com/net-neutrality-the-new-dark-ages/
Please poke holes in this. I don't want to believe that this is 100% accurate.
Monday, President Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission (http://www.fcc.gov/) to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service providers with the hope of maintaining “a free and open Internet.” He called on the Federal Communications Commission to commence treating all Internet traffic equally, this is known as Net Neutrality.
He is asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reclassify internet service providers (ISPs) from “information services” under Title I as telecommunications providers under Title II regulatory guidelines.
That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”
In January 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the DC circuit sided with Verizon and overturned the FCC’s Open Internet rules. But it was not a total loss for the FCC. The court upheld that the FCC has authority to regulate Internet openness. The court just did not like the legal grounds the agency based its rules on. Shocking I know, the government while ruling for the plaintiff, showed the government agency the proper way of claiming such authority.
However, one must admit that on its face, it seems like a reasonable request.
One that puts the American consumer before the corporations that provide the infrastructure of the web. One of my rules of thumb, in assessing regulation and legislation, is the reaction of the affected companies. ATT, Verizon, and Comcast all had their spokespeople release a response to the President’s announcement:
“Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation”-Verizon official statement
“Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests”-Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs
“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper”-David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast
As you can see, the reaction by the broadband providers was NOT a positive one, with Comcast going as far as outlining a potential legal strategy for a lawsuit against any such classification of broadband as a utility.
While part of me revels in their misery, due to the fact that these providers are already bastard children of public-private partnerships who, to paraphrase Ron Swanson,
http://wearelibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sw.jpg (http://wearelibertarians.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sw.jpg)
But,schadenfreude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude) has no place in determining the virtue of Net Neutrality. The internet is simply too important to mankind to let emotion creep in.
So, what should be our criteria in assessing whether Net Neutrality is a good thing for the individual?
1) Will it lower the price of broadband for the individual?
2) Will it improve the quality of broadband for the individual?
3) Will it increase the government’s role in our lives and what effect would that have on the internet?
Will it lower the price for the consumer?NO
Perhaps for some in rural areas, but not for 95% of consumers. Texas deregulated their energy industry in 2000 and the effect on price was drastic for those in competitive markets:
“The regulated price per kilowatt hour in CenterPoint’s service area was 10.4 cents then. Factoring in inflation, the equivalent today would be 13.6 cents. Essentially, consumers today can buy electricity on a fixed-term contract for 44 percent less than the prices of 2001.” (Source) (http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Facts-show-electric-competition-works-in-Texas-4221499.php)
Now think about your personal financial situation. When was the last time your cable bill, without introductory or teaser offers, went down? Your cellphone bill, excluding setting up a family and friends plan? How about groceries? Taxes?
The point is, competition drives down price, not regulators. If anything, the government should be deregulating the broadband industry and getting out of its way entirely, of course that assumes the government really wants to help the consumer…
Will it improve the quality of broadband for the consumer?NO
No. Let’s take a look at JD Power and Associates Consumer Satisfaction Survey of Residential Electric Companies:
“Overall customer satisfaction with residential electric utilities has increased year over year driven primarily by improvements in corporate citizenship and outage communications, according to the J.D. Power 2014 Electric Utility Residential Customer Satisfaction StudySM released today.
However, the improvements in the electric utility industry are not keeping pace with those in a variety of other service industries.
The study, now in its 16th year, measures customer satisfaction with electric utility companies by examining six factors: power quality and reliability; price; billing and payment; corporate citizenship; communications; and customer service.” (Source (http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2014-electric-utility-residential-customer-satisfaction-study))
You cannot regulate a company into caring about its customers, nor can you regulate that said company invest in innovation so that they can improve their product. Only competition, free from government intervention, can increase the quality of products while simultaneously driving down the cost. So why on earth would someone limit the number of providers to one or only a select few?
Compare the cost of Lasik in 2005 to the 2014 price. Now compare the cost of an appendectomy in 2005 to 2014. Which procedure is more tightly regulated? Which one saw the price come down further? How about greater improvement in quality?
Will it increase the government’s role in our lives and what effect would that have on the internet?
So far we have learned that turning broadband into a utility will not only raise the cost of broadband it will also lower the quality of service, if history is any indicator. But would it increase government’s role in our lives and how would it affect the internet?
You would have had to have lived in an area controlled by the Islamic State over the last year and a half, to be unaware of the government’s absolute control over the internet. The US Federal Government watches every corner (Google: Snowden, Dread Pirate Roberts, Silk Road 1 and 2.0).
Now, the defeated among us may be saying, “How much more control could they possibly have? Why even put up a fight?” But that misses the point entirely.
Net neutrality may not increase the government’s role in our lives, because how exactly does one increase infinity?
But what it would do, is grant license to the broadband providers to stop innovating and investing in infrastructure, and would shift their executive’s focus to figuring out ways to squeeze as much profit as possible from their existing infrastructure. When would that moment be?
The second their accountants discovered that the cost of expanding their infrastructure would be greater than the potential profit from serving new customers.
In addition, what would happen if a disruptive technology were to emerge that threatens their profits and thus the livelihood of these government sponsored monopolies? Can you already picture politicians hitting the road to campaign about protecting jobs while lining the pockets of their SuperPAC with funds from the broadband providers?
Would you really put it past the government to ban said technology in the name of the American worker?
See Lightsquared (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/12/us-lightsquare-lawsuit-idUSKBN0FH0VZ20140712), Aereo (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/), and American Letter Mail Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company)
So to answer our question, would Net Neutrality increase the government’s role in our lives and what would it do to the internet? Net Neutrality is the equivalent of putting a restrictor plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictor_plate) on a drag racer. It would forever hamper the technological development of the internet.
It’s pretty clear, that unless you have given up all hope in the fight against government cronyism and are willing to accept download speeds as they exist today and no faster, Net Neutrality is an atrocious crime against the individual.
I know I am probably overly optimistic in believing that I will live to see the defeat of government cronyism, and the cynics are probably right to mock my belief in the transformative power of the internet. But the internet has been invaluable in assisting mankind with his liberation from the rule of tyrants. Where would we be if the United States had passed Net Neutrality in 1999?
Would Amazon Prime exist?
Would the Arab Spring have happened?
Would we all still be using AOL Instant Messenger instead of Facebook and Twitter?
Last, but not least, would Steve Jobs have had any reason to ever begin working on a combination wireless MP3 player and cellular phone? Would the $25 Billion annual market for mobile applications even exist?
So no. I do not accept or support Net Neutrality. I stand resolute in preventing the government from shackling the internet and damning it into a modern dark age. Why?
Because I am a libertarian, which means I dislike the world as it exists today. Rather than behave rationally and adapt to the world, as Net Neutrality supporters are so wont to do, I stand in direct opposition to it and the status quo.
The unthinking supporters, at one point or another, have probably given the picture below a Facebook like or even shared it while they were on their iPhone at a Starbucks, where they ordered a latte via the Starbucks mobile app, because they were connected to the free high speed wireless network during their wait in line:
That’s too bad because if it were up to them, and Net Neutrality had been passed in 1999, their Starbucks experience would have been much different.
They would have been waiting in line playing Snake on their Nokia 3210’s, thinking about which songs they were going to remove from their MP3 player to create space for the new ones, and getting out their wallet to pay the barista with cash.
Luckily, the world is not reliant upon Net Neutrality supporters for progress.
It relies on us. We are the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. We are the trouble makers, the round heads in the square holes, the ones who see things differently. We are not fond of rules or the status quo.
You can mock us, you can belittle us, but you cannot ignore us. Because we change things. We push the human race forward, we stand in opposition to government control, and we are just crazy enough to think we can change the world. Why?
Because unlike the Net Neutrality supporters who cling to their download speeds and demand internet streaming equality, We Are Libertarians. We prefer the unleashed, unrestrained internet because without it, you would not be reading this…
I don't understand the ramifications of the proposed policy, so several arguments in that article don't make sense to me, such as this:
The unthinking supporters, at one point or another, have probably given the picture below a Facebook like or even shared it while they were on their iPhone at a Starbucks, where they ordered a latte via the Starbucks mobile app, because they were connected to the free high speed wireless network during their wait in line:
That’s too bad because if it were up to them, and Net Neutrality had been passed in 1999, their Starbucks experience would have been much different.
They would have been waiting in line playing Snake on their Nokia 3210’s, thinking about which songs they were going to remove from their MP3 player to create space for the new ones, and getting out their wallet to pay the barista with cash.That conclusion appears to be a non sequitur to me. Nothing I read in the article supports it.
But what it [net neutrality] would do, is grant license to the broadband providers to stop innovating and investing in infrastructure, and would shift their executive’s focus to figuring out ways to squeeze as much profit as possible from their existing infrastructure. What? How does "net neutrality" discourage companies from investing in infrastructure?
I do not accept or support Net Neutrality. I stand resolute in preventing the government from shackling the internet and damning it into a modern dark age. Why?
Because I am a libertarian, which means I dislike the world as it exists today. Rather than behave rationally and adapt to the world, as Net Neutrality supporters are so wont to do, I stand in direct opposition to it and the status quo.
[...]
We are the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. We are the trouble makers, the round heads in the square holes, the ones who see things differently. We are not fond of rules or the status quo.
The above section makes the author sound like a teenager who shops at Hot Topic because being in some sort of "counter-culture" is "cool."
Umm, since when are communists/socialists and big corporations on the same side? You seem to be somehow confused about what Net Neutrality actually means.
lol. Republicans and Democrats agree on 95% of things. The squabbling between them makes it easy to forget. I'm quite surprised that the president has taken a stand against this, as it is not in the nature of a socialist to pursue Net Neutrality. I can't help if you understand it from only what Ted Cruz has said. My background is computers and networking before I joined the Air Force.
The biggest problem with "net neutrality" is that its an amorphous term that doesn't mean the same thing every time its invoked. Its like saying "gun safety" ... to us "gun safety" is the 4 rules, to a progressive "gun safety" is absolute gun control.
I don't trust Democrats and especially not Obama and his fellow travelers. He uses the term "net neutrality" because it sounds nice, and certain definitions of it are a good thing. But the reality is he doesn't believe in liberty or an open anything so I guarantee you whatever "net neutrality" scheme he's putting forward will be designed to give government more power over speech and more ability to tax.I feel like this is right on the money. Up until now I thought of "net neutrality" as preventing content filtering or meddling by service providers, but I can see how it's exactly like "gun safety" as you mentioned.
What? How does "net neutrality" discourage companies from investing in infrastructure?
Net Neutrality would break the monopolistic nature of the USA's residential internet service. When infrastructure is to be put down the big corporations in charge of the area sue them. Net Neutrality would encourage to invest in infrastructure in order to compete. They love having no competition.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 13:17
lol. Republicans and Democrats agree on 95% of things. The squabbling between them makes it easy to forget. I'm quite surprised that the president has taken a stand against this, as it is not in the nature of a socialist to pursue Net Neutrality. I can't help if you understand it from only what Ted Cruz has said. My background is computers and networking before I joined the Air Force.
Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.
My Career is in networks for the financial industry... while it's not the internet (It's a private network), I understand the costs and maintenance that goes into maintaining a global network. I've been doing this for a major carrier for 17 years- I won't name the carrier because I'm not speaking for them, and someone could think that I was... I'm not in PR, just a design & implementation engineer who also deals with budgets for a global network.
Net Neutrality would break the monopolistic nature of the USA's residential internet service. When infrastructure is to be put down the big corporations in charge of the area sue them. Net Neutrality would encourage to invest in infrastructure in order to compete. They love having no competition.
Again with this monopoly BS- Source?
The US has 7 Internet core providers (these are the main backbone providers, there are 1000s of ISPs at the edge who buy services from them), doesn't sound like a monopoly to me... a Monopoly means 1 provider would control it all.
you sound like you're regurgitating a narrative from the 99% groups...
Of course the government wants to re-classify it, they want to control the content.
This isn't hard to comprehend, we have a president who dreams of dictatorship and controlling the communications is a giant step toward his dream. He already has the major media spreading his lies and deceit, the internet is the last bastion of free speech.
This is the fairness doctrine applied to the world wide web.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 13:40
Here's an article from 2007, see if it still applies today:
The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content.
That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.
Source: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56272.html
The FCC tried to force Net Neutrality, and the courts found that they were over-stepping their authority.
On 23 September 2011, the FCC released its final rules for Preserving a Free and Open Internet. These rules state that providers must have transparency of network management practices, not block lawful content, nor unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.[112] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-112) These rules are effective 20 November 2011.
On 14 January 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Federal_Communicati ons_Commission_%282014%29) that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, as service providers are not identified as "common carriers".[113] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-113) Since the 14 January ruling, AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T) has submitted several patents [114] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#cite_note-114) that account for specific ways to take advantage of the FCC's limited authority. Verizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon) is also under a mountain of allegations that they have been slowing access to both Netflix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix) and to the Amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) Cloud services, although the company denies these allegations. Multiple independent sources have performed network speed analysis and do find slower connection times to these sites, although there is currently no proof that Verizon is purposefully causing these slowdowns.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality (there are other sources cited in the Wikipedia entry)
So when Netflix decided to enter in agreements with some ISPs directly: http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
Check figure 5... performance to Comcast's customers improved after the agreement, because it was no longer delivered through a transit network, but directly to Comcast's backbone- in short the bottleneck was bypassed because they bought BW that they were using on the content side.
If there are cases where a carrier engages in anti-competitive behaviour, there are other laws against that- and they can be sued or prosecuted.
The whole Net Neutrality debate is either about trying to get something for nothing (in the case of Netflix, as an example), or about power & taxes...
China has Nationalized Internet, you want to move in that direction by giving the Gov't more power over it?
I spend some $dayjob arguing about net neutrality so I am not going to do it here.. But this sums it up:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.
What about Netflix matters in this? They DO pay for their internet access. The users of Netflix DO pay for their internet access. What you're describing is the companies who were paid already wanting more. There's no way to work around that. They want more, even after the bill is paid.
Whether a "big corporatation" is for Net Neutrality would depend on what their role is in the internet... Netflix is obviously FOR it, since they want to force the main core carriers to carry their traffic (which is 1/3 the internet's traffic) without paying them a dime to invest in the infrastructure...
The carriers are obviously against it... and have won lawsuits that the FCC was over-stepping their bounds when they forced Net Neutrality as they defined it.
By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.
For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..
If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.
By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.
For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..
If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.
That's where I am. I could go into all of this, but the level of existing understanding and willingness to understand is so low it has only been worth my time to try to correct the big errors.
Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said
Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.
A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).
buffalobo
11-11-2014, 14:26
Asmo, I am sure plenty of folks here would appreciate and laud your efforts.
So we have the government on one end and private enterprise on the other end and the users (all of us) stuck in the middle?
So we have the government on one end and private enterprise on the other end and the users (all of us) stuck in the middle?
Yep. Shitty situation, and no clear way to fix it since you would need someone with the people's interest in mind to correct it. That's why I'm doubtful over this posted by OP, but mildly hopeful.
HoneyBadger
11-11-2014, 15:24
I spend some $dayjob arguing about net neutrality so I am not going to do it here.. But this sums it up:
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality
The oatmeal is super liberal... not a reasonable source of information on the topic.
Zundfolge
11-11-2014, 15:37
Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.
Just because someone uses the term "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean they're talking about the good thing you're thinking about (/me points to gun safety analogy I posted earlier).
The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.
A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist.
The opposite is true, we have never had any government forced net neutrality before. We are ALREADY at the mercy of our ISPs and they don't regulate content because the first one to do so would go out of business in a matter of days. The free market is what kept the internet mostly free and open. Stop trying to distort the free market, it never works out well for those at the bottom.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 15:39
What about Netflix matters in this? They DO pay for their internet access. The users of Netflix DO pay for their internet access. What you're describing is the companies who were paid already wanting more. There's no way to work around that. They want more, even after the bill is paid.
By this one statement it is entirely obvious that you have zero concept of how the Internet actually works and how it is paid for. Please don't hold strong opinions about things you don't understand. Come back when you have a basic understanding of things like transit, peering, cost relocation/sharing, negative transit, pay-for-play, etc. Your understanding of how Netflix and Comcast get paid is entirely flawed.
For the Comcast/NetFlix issue (which I may have been intimately involved with as a neutral 3rd party) - Comcast was/is leveraging its ability as a monopoly in a majority of markets (they own the content and the eyeballs - and the roads to get to those eyeballs) to try and get NetFlix to pay above and beyond the costs they were already covering by the ARPU from the end-user subscription revenues. In effect, double-dipping..
If anyone really wants a lesson in all of this I will post a long diatribe, but I really don't want to.
There's 2 sides to this- and ARPU applies to infrastructure costs that were predicted, and the IXPs (cross-connects between carrirers) are predicted in a model.
Netflix comes along with their horrible delivery model (from an efficiency standpoint, millions of the same movie being delivered in individual streams) and adds 1/3 more traffic onto that model, and the IXPs get overloaded between who gets paid from Nexflix, and who gets paid from the subcribers... Now that infrastructure has to be upgraded- and somebody on each side has to pay for that upgrade... Or Netflix could change their delivery model to something that doesn't overload IXPs and core links (put the content at the edge)
As an engineer, I've always thought their content delivery model sucks balls- and is dictated by the MPAA (content must be encrypted and individually delivered)... I'd argue you don't seem like a very neutral 3rd party.
Zundfolge
11-11-2014, 15:43
Yep. Shitty situation, and no clear way to fix it since you would need someone with the people's interest in mind to correct it. That's why I'm doubtful over this posted by OP, but mildly hopeful.
How is that a shitty situation? The internet exists and thrives preciously because it has been the free market environment we conservatives and libertarians have been carping about for the last half century.
If the government had started these stupid rules back in the early days of the internet we'd all still be stuck on Compuserve and AOL and Netflix would be the stuff of science fiction.
The simple fact is if these so-called Net Neutrality rules go into effect it will mean the end of flat rate/unlimited data plans and we'll all have to start paying by the MB ... and you can kiss Netflix goodbye.
True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.
How is that a shitty situation? The internet exists and thrives preciously because it has been the free market environment we conservatives and libertarians have been carping about for the last half century.
If the government had started these stupid rules back in the early days of the internet we'd all still be stuck on Compuserve and AOL and Netflix would be the stuff of science fiction.
So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 16:01
Let me start (and hopefully end with this). Those that know me - know that I am a very strong libertarian, hate government involvement with just about anything, and want them out of our lives as much as possible. That said
Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing. It is the foundation of the Internet as we all know it.
A small example: Without Net Neutrality we would all be at the mercy of our Internet providers to regulate what content we are allowed to see. Without it, things like THIS MESSAGE BOARD, would probably not exist. Think about it this way - if Comcast says they don't like guns, they could throttle (or outright deny) the bandwidth to this COAR-15 to practically nothing - preventing all of us from coming here or we would have to pay *extra* to go to this site, etc. What kind of an effect would that have on the Internet as a whole if it was applied en mass? Please don't think for a second that your ISPs wont do it (hint: they all have test markets doing this right now).
I've seen claims of this- usually it's related to P2P applications, or other applications which are causing network congestion issues...
It generally goes like this: "I can't get to xxx or yyy by using my ISP, but if I put it in a VPN, then it work fine- so they're censoring based on content"
They have zero concept of how routing works in the internet, and should not speak about it, especially since they generally do no investigation as to WHY the VPN fixed the issue...
It can also go back to congested links, or even DNS issues that could be fixed. If they're on network A, and trying to get to a service on network B, and the A-B link is congested- then they launch a VPN which is on network C... and the A-C and B-C network links are not congested, then it appears circumvent censorship, but all they did was move their traffic (re-route it) on links that were not congested.
Actual censorship can again be fought through other legal means, we don't need more regulations to dictate how to manage a network...
since you're bringing up the extreme example of Comcast fully censoring a website they don't like for political reasons (which is a clear 1st amendment violation), I'll bring up the other extreme-
Will carriers have to get Gov't approval to block DoS attacks from hacker groups? I mean if ALL traffic is to be treated the same, then who's to say Anonymous doesn't have the right to shutdown a right-wing website they don't agree with by saturating it with bogus traffic? What about Trojans? If they use the internet to infect other machines, how do you determine their right to do so? Maybe they're just advertising?
Zundfolge
11-11-2014, 16:03
True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.
There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.
So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.
No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!
HoneyBadger
11-11-2014, 16:08
Here's an interesting read from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/
If you watch the news, it seems just about everyone is in favor of “Net Neutrality” legislation. Despite being a tech-addicted entrepreneur, I am not. No, I am not a paid shill for the cable industry. I am no fan of Comcast (http://www.donloper.com/entrepreneurship/why-not-to-use-comcast-internet.html) or any other ISP I’ve ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with. I’m skeptical of large corporations generally and dislike the fact that in this debate I appear to be on their side. While I have no problem with net neutrality as a principle or concept, I have serious concerns about Net Neutrality as legislation or public policy. And since a false dichotomy is being perpetuated by the media in regards to this matter, I feel an obligation to put forth a third point of view. In taking this stand, I realize I may be the only techie, if I can aspire to that label, opposed to Net Neutrality and that I open myself to accusations of killing the dreams of young entrepreneurs (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/killing-net-neutrality-kills-the-dreams-of-young-entrepreneurs.html), wrecking free speech (https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality), and destroying the Internet (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/13/1299033/-Easy-choice-The-right-side-is-the-popular-side-in-Net-Neutrality-fight). Nevertheless, here are three reasons I’m against Net Neutrality legislation.
I Want More Competition
Proponents of Net Neutrality say the telecoms have too much power. I agree. Everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad and competition is good, and just like you, I would like to see more competition. But if monopolies are bad, why should we trust the U.S. government, the largest monopoly of all? We’re talking about the same organization that spent an amount equal to Facebook’s first six years of operating costs (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/) to build a health care website that doesn’t work, the same organization that can’t keep the country’s bridges from falling down (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/16/bridge-safety_n_3933317.html), and the same organization that spends320 times what private industry spends to send a rocket into space (http://www.policymic.com/articles/11354/spacex-spends-320-times-less-on-building-the-dragon-than-nasa-does-on-the-orion). Let’s try a thought experiment–think of an industry that has major problems. Public schools? Health care? How about higher education, student loans, housing, banking, physical infrastructure, immigration, the space program, the military, the police, and the post office? What do all these industries and/or organizations have in common? They are all heavily regulated or controlled by the government. On the other hand we see that where deregulation has occurred, innovation has bloomed, such as with telephony services. Do you think we’d all be walking around with smartphones today if the government still ran the phone system?
The U.S. government has shown time after time that it is ineffective at managing much of anything. This is by design. The Founders intentionally created a government that was slow, inefficient, and plagued by gridlock, because they knew the greatest danger to individual freedom came from a government that could move quickly–too quickly for the people to react in time to protect themselves. If we value our freedom, we need government to be slow. But if government is slow, we shouldn’t rely on it to provide us with products and services we want in a timely manner at a high level of quality. The telecoms may be bad, but everything that makes them bad is what the government is by definition. Can we put “bad” and “worse” together and end up with “better”?
I don’t like how much power the telecoms have. But the reason they’re big and powerful isn’t because there is a lack of government regulation, but because of it. Government regulations are written by large corporate interests which collude with officials in government. The image of government being full of people on a mission to protect the little guy from predatory corporate behemoths is an illusion fostered by politicians and corporate interests alike. Many, if not most, government regulations are the product of crony capitalism designed to prevent small entrepreneurs from becoming real threats to large corporations. If Net Neutrality comes to pass how can we trust it will not be written in a way that will make it harder for new companies to offer Internet services? If anything, we’re likely to end up even more beholden to the large telecoms than before. Of course at this point the politicians will tell us if they hadn’t stepped in that things would be even worse.
If the telecoms are forced to compete in a truly free market, Comcast and Time Warner won’t exist 10 years from now. They’ll be replaced by options that give us better service at a lower price. Some of these new options may depend on being able to take advantage of the very freedom to charge more for certain types of Internet traffic that Net Neutrality seeks to eliminate. If we want to break up the large telecoms through increased competition we need to eliminate regulations that act as barriers to entry in the space, rather than create more of them.
I Want More Privacy
Free speech cannot exist without privacy, and the U.S. government has been shown to be unworthy of guarding the privacy of its citizens. Only the latest revelation of many, Glenn Greenwald’s new book No Place To Hide (http://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance/dp/162779073X/) reveals that the U.S. government tampers with Internet routers (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/12/glenn-greenwald-nsa-tampers-us-internet-routers-snowden) during the manufacturing process to aid it’s spying programs. Is this the organization we trust to take even more control of the Internet? Should we believe that under Net Neutrality the government will trust the telecoms to police themselves? The government will need to verify, at a technical level, whether the telecoms are treating data as they should. Don’t be surprised if that means the government says it needs to be able to install its own hardware and software at critical points to monitor Internet traffic. Once installed, can we trust this government, or anygovernment, to use that access in a benign manner?
While privacy and freedom of speech may not be foremost on your mind today because you like who is running the government right now, remember that government control tends to swing back and forth. How will you feel about the government having increased control of the Internet when Republicans own the House and Senate and Jeb Bush is elected President, all at the same time?
I Want More Freedom
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. – James Madison,The Federalist No. 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm)
Many of us see the U.S. government as a benevolent and all-knowing parent with the best interests of you and me, its children, at heart. I see the U.S. government as a dangerous tyrant, influenced by large corporate interests, seeking to control everyone and everything. Perhaps these diverging perspectives on the nature of the U.S. government are what account for a majority of the debate between proponents and opponents of Net Neutrality. If I believed the U.S. government was omniscient, had only good intentions, and that those intentions would never change, I would be in favor of Net Neutrality and more. But it wasn’t all that long ago that FDR was locking up U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry in concentration camps and Woodrow Wilson was outlawing political dissent. More recently we’ve seen the U.S. government fight unjust wars, topple elected democracies, and otherwise interfere in world affairs. We’ve seen the same government execute its own citizens in violation of Fifth Amendment rights (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/19/197159/judge-torn-over-lawsuit-in-drone.html)guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put–I don’t trust the U.S. government. Nor do I trust any other government, even if “my team” wins the election. I see any increase in regulation, however well-intentioned, however beneficial to me today, as leading to less freedom for me and society in the long term. For this reason those who rose up against SOPA and PIPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA) a few years ago should be equally opposed to Net Neutrality.
What Instead?
Internet bandwidth is, at least currently, a finite resource and has to be allocated somehow. We can let politicians decide, or we can let you and me decide by leaving it up to the free market. If we choose politicians, we will see the Internet become another mismanaged public monopoly, subject to political whims and increased scrutiny from our friends at the NSA. If we leave it up to the free market we will, in time, receive more of what we want at a lower price. It may not be a perfect process, but it will be better than the alternative.
Free markets deal exceptionally well in the process of “creative destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction)” economist Joseph Shumpeter championed as the mode by which society raises its standard of living. Although any progress is not without its impediments and free markets aren’t an instant panacea, even U2’s Bono embraced the fact entrepreneurial capitalism does more to eradicate poverty than foreign aid (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/11/08/u2s-bono-courageously-embraces-capitalism/). Especially in the area of technology, government regulation has little, if any place. Governments cannot move fast enough to effectively regulate technology companies because by the time they move, the technology has changed and the debate is irrelevant. Does anyone remember the antitrust cases against Microsoft because of the Internet Explorer browser? The worse services provided by the large telecoms are, the more incentive there will be for entrepreneurs to create new technologies. Five years from now a new satellite technology may emerge that makes fiber obsolete, and we’ll all be getting wireless terabit downloads from space directly to our smartphones, anywhere in the world, for $5/month. Unrealistic? Just think what someone would have said in 1994 if you had tried to explain to them everything you can do today on an iPhone, and at what price.
Joshua Steimle (http://twitter.com/donloper) is an entrepreneur and U. S. citizen currently residing in Hong Kong.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 16:11
True neutrality would be to pay for specific speeds. 1.5 mb, 7 mb, 15 mb, 50 mb, etc. Charging based on how much data you transfer is what Net Neutrality would oppose. That opens up the carrier to offering special services that bypass that data cap, which is anti-competitive.
EVERY TCP session on the internet is a 2-way conversation (it is a "reliable protocol" in that it sends ACK packets back to acknowledge that each packet was received.), and every destination has a source... direct communication between those endpoints, no matter how many.
so when there are 3 million subscribers that each have 10Mbps, then how much BW does the provider of that content need? (30Tbps) What BW level did they subscribe to?
So you're for government intervention? lol. I don't know what you're getting at. We're just spinning rhetoric here.
Zund is saying the Gov't would have limited innovation and growth of the internet- which is what we're seeing again with content providers like Netflix & Amazon Prime... and something has to give- and those companies are arguing over who is going to. I say let them work it out, and keep the damn Government OUT of it.
There is nothing in what has been proposed that says that charging based on how much data you transfer would be forbidden only that charging different people different rates for or throttling different kinds of traffic would be forbidden. This is my point though, you come here with a preconceived notion of what Net Neutrality is (like Gun Safety) and some politicritter starts spouting off about "Net Neutrality" which is this wonderful thing you want and then gives you something that is nothing like the Net Neutrality you have in your mind. THIS is what I expect from Obama and his ilk.
No, proponents of Net Neutrality are the ones for government intervention, I'm for leave it the fuck alone goddamnit!
You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 16:24
You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.
HELLO? do you even read your own posts? This entire THREAD is about the Government re-classifiying the internet as a UTILITY so they can REGULATE it. All previous rulings (even by the SCOTUS) have ruled the internet is an information service.
I AM for Net Neutrality (in it's most simple form- no blocking or censorship)- but I am NOT for the Government regulating it.
MOD EDIT
Actually I was asked to discuss Net Neutrality near the beginning. I am not arguing for authoritarian control over the internet. I am arguing for the opposite of it. However the other authoritarians who oppose Obama's version of it also don't know what they're talking about. Both the Dems and Reps are talking out of their butts; imagine that! Between the politics the truth lies.
HoneyBadger
11-11-2014, 16:40
You're so full of rhetoric that I can't even dissect the actual points to respond. You're lying about things too. Proponents of Net Neutrality are not for government intervention. Authoritarians are for government intervention. Government intervention is what has gotten us to where we need Net Neutrality.
If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.
The tell for me is that President Obama is in favor of it.
That is a strong indicator for me on which position I should take.
Call me a contrarian when it comes to the President's policies. It has worked pretty well for me so far.
The best government is the smallest government.
Be safe.
If it is this simple, then please explain why the POTUS is in favor of it.
I have no idea why an authoritarian would taken on what appears to be a libertarian cause. I'd have to ask Rand Paul why he does it to get some insight. My guess is for appearance. Plus look at the wedge he's creating. By Obama taking on a good cause he has immediately turned Republicans against it. It sounds like politics, and the good cause is going to be what suffers (see gun safety).
Following that logic, President Obama should propose the repeal of the NFA or oppose abortion.
I believe that the President is co-opting the term you support and will bend it to accomplish what he wants. This has been a favored tactic of the left for decades.
Who doesn't want good healthcare for all citizens?
Since when was internet access a guaranteed right? Obamacare was on the principle of "Everyone deserves healthcare!". I can't argue that idea for internet access. We survived a very long time without internet and maybe this would get people into a library more. :shrugs: If a company charges a ton for internet, dont use them. This creates a free market and the people paying dictate what companies will charge. Or it forces a new company to form and offer a more affordable option. Gee, I wonder if that's how Cricket phone service came about?
Net Neutrality Lets lay this to rest -or- You guys keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Having ISPs being reclassified as a Common Carrier (what Obama is talking about) != Net Neutrality (what we in the ISP/Telcom industry have been discussing for 10 years).
Being changed to a CC/Title II is a backdoor way to change the regulation mechanism to increase tax revenue and footprint. It allows for things like "Universal Access"/USF to be mandated for low income and the like and is way to put major regulations on the industry - those regulations are *not* a bad thing for many of the major incumbent carriers since it very much cements their footprint and effectively blocks a bunch of competition.
Where the two cross over, and why there is confusion, is because there are some in the ISP community wanting the Gov't to intervene to ensure that the way we have always done things will be the way it will be done in the future (e.g. traffic will not be denied/delayed/destroyed based on content). But that is like playing with atomic weapons - It sounds like a lot of fun, but in the end, you will probably end up fucking yourself and everyone around you.
I am leaving this thread since all it does it move my blood pressure up. 99.999% of you have no clue what your talking about and are only repeating what you have heard on TV/News/Twitter.
Lets go back to talking about guns.
Actual censorship can again be fought through other legal means, we don't need more regulations to dictate how to manage a network...
since you're bringing up the extreme example of Comcast fully censoring a website they don't like for political reasons (which is a clear 1st amendment violation), I'll bring up the other extreme-
*Leave out the personal attacks* -- foxtrot
Reworded at the suggestion of foxtrot
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with the speech between two private parties. You might need to brush up on your legal understandings before posting.
Oh. One last thing..
Comcast (and others like them) are fully supportive of the Obama plan to reclassify service providers under Title II. Comcast's lobbyists wrote most of the proposed bill language.
Oh. One last thing..
Comcast (and others like them) are fully supportive of the Obama plan to reclassify service providers under Title II. Comcast's lobbyists wrote most of the proposed bill language.
And I needed another reason to dislike this?
68Charger
11-11-2014, 19:28
Oh. One last thing..
Comcast (and others like them) are fully supportive of the Obama plan to reclassify service providers under Title II. Comcast's lobbyists wrote most of the proposed bill language.
Then they've either changed their mind, or they're dividied:
“Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation”-Verizon official statement
“Today’s announcement by the White House, if acted upon by the FCC, would be a mistake that will do tremendous harm to the Internet and to U.S. national interests”-Jim Cicconi, AT&T senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs
“To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper”-David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast
source: http://wearelibertarians.com/net-neutrality-the-new-dark-ages/
68Charger
11-11-2014, 19:31
Net Neutrality Lets lay this to rest -or- You guys keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Having ISPs being reclassified as a Common Carrier (what Obama is talking about) != Net Neutrality (what we in the ISP/Telcom industry have been discussing for 10 years).
Being changed to a CC/Title II is a backdoor way to change the regulation mechanism to increase tax revenue and footprint. It allows for things like "Universal Access"/USF to be mandated for low income and the like and is way to put major regulations on the industry - those regulations are *not* a bad thing for many of the major incumbent carriers since it very much cements their footprint and effectively blocks a bunch of competition.
Where the two cross over, and why there is confusion, is because there are some in the ISP community wanting the Gov't to intervene to ensure that the way we have always done things will be the way it will be done in the future (e.g. traffic will not be denied/delayed/destroyed based on content). But that is like playing with atomic weapons - It sounds like a lot of fun, but in the end, you will probably end up fucking yourself and everyone around you.
I am leaving this thread since all it does it move my blood pressure up. 99.999% of you have no clue what your talking about and are only repeating what you have heard on TV/News/Twitter.
Lets go back to talking about guns.
Fine, you're even saying they're related... I know they're not the same thing- and that it means different things to different people.
I guess that's the difference- I'm not upset, I thought we were having a civil discussion (mostly)... I may have an idea why it's making you upset, but I'll let it go. have a nice day.
68Charger
11-11-2014, 19:34
*Leave out the personal attacks* -- foxtrot
Reworded at the suggestion of foxtrot
The 1st amendment has nothing to do with the speech between two private parties. You might need to brush up on your legal understandings before posting.
There are a >FEW< more people than 2 on this board... but now I'm just trolling, so I'll stop.[Beer]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.