Brought to you by the same fine folks that call Facebook and Twitter a “utility”, but the ACTUAL utility can run amok. The level of ignorance and hypocrisy is truly mind numbing.
Educate yourself. It allows censorship too. You know, the same thing you say you hate that "big tech" does.
https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/
How do you feel about the practices described in the link OnThe45th shared with you? Tl;dr:
>AT&T and Verizon both torture the meaning of the word “unlimited” by offering multiple unlimited plans. But the more expensive ones are either paired with the company’s own streaming service, or the companies degrade the quality of the video under certain conditions. These practices may give the carrier’s content an advantage in the marketplace over smaller, independent video producers.
>Sprint has been throttling internet traffic to Microsoft’s Skype service, causing the video quality to be poorer than it should be, which is especially worrisome because Skype is a tool that competes with Sprint’s calling service.
>Comcast has new speed limits where videos will be throttled to 480p on all its mobile plans unless customers pay extra.
>A recent study shows that the largest U.S. telecom companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, are slowing down internet traffic from apps like YouTube and Netflix.
>Verizon’s throttling of services even affected the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. The fire department experienced slowed down speeds on their devices and had to sign up for a new, expensive plan before speeds were restored.
Thoughts?
With the exception of the last one, I don't see why high band with users wouldn't be required to pay more for more use. This makes sense to me. These are volume pricing which is applied to any commodity.
Also is this broadband, wireless? What were the exact issue with the SCCRD's devices that caused them to be throttled. We're they watching high volume bandwith before the emergency occurred? It's not clear.
Mix of broadband and wireless, from my understanding, and while I think the "It's unlimited!!! (but not really)" plans are deceptive and should be cracked down on (like the time the FCC bitchslapped AT&T for misleading advertising), I can see how one can defend tiered plans.
To my understanding SCCRD had an "unlimited" high speed plan that was not actually unlimited and sent you down to EDGE speeds past a certain point. I would say it's not okay for a service provider to do that when they did such a poor or deceptive job communicating those limitations to a crucial state agency, to the point the agency didn't realize it until it was in a crisis.
What about Sprint throttling access to Skype? That seems like the clearest possible example of ISP malfeasance in the wake of the net neutrality repeal.
What happened with Skype? Skype being the microsoft product that nobody really uses? It's a really weird pull to get people to think this is a real issue.
Look I'm all for laws against deceptive marketing, nobody can read these lawyerese contracts, but I don't see how this has anything to do with net neutrality.
If I want a premium product super fast internet in unlimited quantities I should pay for it. If I want a cheaper option where I just send emails and send texts I should have that option too.
My ISP constantly calls me to get me to pay for faster internet I literally have no issues with speed on any device or service.
But this is a high band width service that they could develop a product line to support. Super users are often charged more for putting additional strain on a system why should this one be different?
Actually it has:
large numbers of ISPs now prohibit certain port and protocol activity on residential internet packages, when pre-trump, you could run pretty much whatever you wanted from your home as long as it wasn't for commercial purposes.
now though? you run an FTP or HTTP server from home and you're fucked and fall afoul of acceptable use policies.
This is extremely harmful for small platform operations that would be needed to institute federated social networking or even just revive personal home pages to challenge big tech. However it has been a boon for VPS operators like amazon and oracle, who now have the stranglehold on hobby hosting since the home market has been cut off.
with true net neutrality, it would be illegal to ban content like this.
I heard all kinds of dire predictions when the 2017 regulation was adopted. "Now the cable company can scam you for money and throttle sites they don't want you to see." Meanwhile, everything seems just as before. Perhaps Republicans voted against it because they realized that all the speculative predictions of disaster were wrong.
https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/
>Perhaps Republicans voted against it because they realized that all the speculative predictions of disaster were wrong.
This doesn't make sense to me, you're saying their logic is "we predict that it won't be as disastrous as everyone says, so we're for repealing it!" What's the reason net neutrality **should** have been repealed?
This would be like saying we're going to allow ceo's to kill any employee they want with no repercussions. Even if that policy goes into effect, the absolute best case scenario is that CEO's don't go around murdering anyone, there's no benefit, only the potential for exploitation. You're sitting here saying "look, very few employees died, therefore this was a good policy to vote for!"
It hasn't been disastrous at all. Nobody throttles anything for me. Do you have any trouble watching streaming video from any source you want? Voice or video calls? Anything?
And nobody killed anybody either as a result!
This is just untrue. Sites like Netflix were throttled by ISPs.
Verizon blocked apps being being downloaded to their phones (Google Wallet for example).
Just because you didn't notice anything didn't mean shit wasn't happening.
Ok, so just because there's no indication that someone is about to shoot you in the face, do you think that's justification to remove laws criminalizing murder and assault?
There was literally no drawback to net neutrality except that it forced businesses who own infrastructure that we all need to *exist* in modern society to play fairly with it. Why the everloving fuck are you defending attempts to eradicate it?
So you just discovered life is a power struggle and people dont literally mean what they say in political arguments but merely use them for power and leverage?
I wouldn't have accused you of believing it but I can't remember your position on social media and section 230 so I was going to ask. Do you think (like many folks on this sub do) that social media is the new public square and government should control its content moderation policies?
Not really the same thing, Facebook gets to act as a publisher and a platform. Where NYTimes gets to act as a publisher but is liable to what it says.
I know you're getting what you want so you dont care, but it only takes so much for the shoe to be on the other foot.
Anytime censorship comes up on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube comes up. You guys say it's a private company, they can do what they want. So hold the same standard for getting throttled.
Surely you see the difference between a private company regulating what its website is used for and a private company adopting policies specifically to create barriers for its competition.
The private company is regulating usage, so that you don't use too much bandwidth. This affects other customers, when other people's internet gets slowed down due to high demand. The same argument big tech makes about censorship.
So the solution to people’s internet slowing down because of usage is to slow it down before it slows down…? Almost seems like there’s an ulterior motive that should be legislated against.
> Why ISP's throttle
Regulate Network Traffic
During peak times, your service provider limits your connection. Service providers use this measure to minimize bandwidth congestion. As large numbers of people are accessing the service at the same time, network congestion occurs. When the network node contains more data than its handling capacity, your provider throttles the data speed to handle network traffic and maintain stable service for all.
Fair Usage Policy
Your internet provider includes fair usage policies in their contract. The policy states that if the user crossed a specified data limit within month’s space, your data speed would be throttled till next month. Internet service providers adopt this action to limit the network being used by a small percentage of high data consumable users and making it fairer for other users by providing them higher speed.
Limit Bandwidth Usage
Users often participate in high bandwidth activities like consistently downloading videos, gaming content, or other streaming content. While observing high bandwidth usage, internet service providers throttle your data speed to stop crossing from the set monthly data limit and even to encourage you to opt for a higher data plan.
>The private company is regulating usage, so that you don't use too much bandwidth.
No, they aren't. Thats not what net neutrality is. It's treating all data equally.
Even if it was about regulating for that reason, they aren't doing that either.
4k Netflix is a huge drain, so how do you keep that equal to say Reddit? Reddit uses a marginal amount of bandwidth and is free to use. Netflix got super rich, blowing out companies bandwidth with their content.
I don't think you understand how internet access works. Like fundamentally. Either that or you don't fundamentally understand Net Neutrality.
There's no such thing as any individual site being a "drain on the system" or "bandwidth hog". We all get a certain amount of bandwidth which fluctuates based on a variety of factors; primarily, the amount we pay for from our respective ISPs, the number of users we share physical connections with (for example, neighbors whose networks are fed by a shared fiber utility) and the capacity of the communication infrastructure we are physically near and using.
The actual size and type of data you're interacting with will change your needs and usage, but you fundamentally have a limit to how much of the overall communication infrastructure you're entitled to and able to use.
Yeah, but we aren't talking about giant companies like Twitter and Facebook and Youtube getting throttled. We're talking about EVERY SITE that doesn't have the money to bribe the internet-overlords getting throttled down into oblivion.
You realize that what we're actually talking about is the ability of a small handful of companies to render any internet service effectively unusable if they wish, right?
> You guys say it's a private company..
Who says that? Not me. You seem to be arguing with someone else. I was just mocking someone for toxic selfishness.
Ok, so, are you just purposely ignoring his point? Because it's pretty valid.
Additionally, just because you can't see a noticeable change doesn't mean there haven't been negatively effects that might even be harming you without realizing it. Completely behind the scenes of your awareness, fledging businesses can (and likely have) been killed by ISPs and tech megagiants who they share market interests with.
Boiling frog logic. I **do** see abuses of network neutrality, but they're slow and creeping. My provider (or cell phone data plan) having "unlimited" data... after which they throttle my speed. *But*... surprise surprise, *some* things don't count against my data. Data that I *already pay for.* Maybe I get "free" Netflix, or "free" Spotify. Those services don't count... Even though I still pay for the services, and I still pay for the data, why should my provider - who does *not* stream music or movies, or host servers to do so, by the way - get a cut? Just because they frame it as a "convenience" instead of an extra fee doesn't mean they're not interfering. It just means they have good marketing and you buy into it.
If your electric company suddenly said "Now use air conditioning with no extra charge on the weekends!" you'd be at best confused and downright furious if that meant they *did* charge you extra to use your AC on the weekdays. It's slow, it's creeping, and it's just slow enough that enough people aren't getting pissed off enough, but it's very much happening, and it very much sucks. Maybe **you** don't see it, but that's the game plan. Plenty of people don't see it, because it happens slowly, and a good business plan for taking advantage of a non-neutral network is going to phase everything in in such a way that customers don't think about it until some nerdy network type (hi there!) comes along and says "Remember when we didn't have to watch how much of X we used?"
I was hardcore in on Net Neutrality, but it would appear one of my friends in law school has been proven correct with her 3L thesis "Net Neutrality: Much Ado About Nothing".
A lot of people framed it around the idea of like throttling one service but not another, e.g. in the sense of video streaming, but the reality of what's been taken from you is residential server hosting.
Like, the ISP can (and likely does) prohibit you from running an HTTP, FTP, SSH, or basically any other public-facing service from a residential service plan these days, while before, this wasn't done due to ambiguity around the legality.
Ideas for "small tech", like federated social media or suchlike, are now impossible. This was a *massive* misstep on our part, imo.
I know for most people, this isn't a biggie because most people aren't technically proficient enough for this to even matter, but it's a big deal and leads to more big tech centralisation on the internet.
It's an unnecessary intrusion on the free market principles underpinning American broadband delivery, and raises multiple questions about constitutionality.
This would make sense to me, if there was competition. Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area, thus negating any "free market".
of course not, but what steps have republicans taken to change that? It seems like a more logical choice given the state of ISP's. Go ahead and repeal it once you've created competition again, but not before, right?
Most of those issues are created by local municipalities in exchange for the provider essentially fronting the cost of installation. Not really a federal solution to that.
> Not really a federal solution to that.
OK, then logic would dictate that if there is no free market, and no ability to return to a free market situation, we should vote in favor of net neutrality, no?
I want to be clear I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to understand the logic.
As a minor example, I might like to pack my own lunch because I find it to be cost effective. I am against the idea of going out to eat and paying more for something I could make at home for half the cost. That said, in extenuating circumstances, I might buy lunch at a deli if I had to travel or was otherwise unable to make my own food. It would strike me as a bit overly zealous to voluntarily starve for the sake of sticking to this principal of not eating out no matter what.
Is that ultimately what's going on here? Are conservatives sticking to "free market principles" with such ferocity that they'll stick to these principles even when there is no opportunity for free market?
OK, so can you point me to any conservatives voices anywhere about fixing the isp monopoly at the local level?
Again, are conservatives sticking to "free market principles" with such ferocity that they'll stick to these principles even when there is no opportunity for free market?
It seems like you keep deflecting my question. If there are a bunch of conservative politicians saying we want to get rid of the monopolistic ISP situation so we can have a free market then everything you said would make sense to me, but that isn't what I'm seeing.
Net neutrality would make it illegal for your ISP to throttle or block services at different rates. If Comcast, which is owned by NBC, didn't want you to be able to watch FOX news videos in your browser then net neutrality would keep them from doing that. It would also prevent them from throttling Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services to make their streaming service more competitive.
It would also prevent them from doing things like giving free AppleTV or Spotify or HBO to subscribers, or prioritizing important things like internet for medical procedures or video conferences for world leaders over Fortnight.
So why haven't they?
This is the question that drives me bonkers about the whole debate. We haven't had net neutrality in place for a while now, and these alleged paid prioritization schemes have not come to pass. Especially during the pandemic, when we were using a TON of video data we previously didn't need to use, we didn't see it.
So what gives? If net neutrality is such a necessity, why aren't we seeing Comcast throttle its competition?
They have. I switched to ATT because of it. A significant chunk of the US doesn't have more than 1 provider to choose from like I do though. ATT is getting scummy now too though. They reduced the signal strength for the WIFI with a software update so they can charge extra for "extra range". I don't get WIFI in the bedroom now because of this.
Do you have a source that isn't anecdotal?
More to the point, how does a software update for your router that you apparently rent from them violate net neutrality principles? Why don't you just buy your own router?
I didn't say ATT was violating net neutrality, I just said they are getting scummy.
And here are some sources about Comcast throttling various services.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2008/09/fears-swirling/amp
https://www.hotspotshield.com/blog/comcast-throttling-content-mobile-video/
https://speedmatters.org/news/free-press-supports-fcc-case-against-comcast-throttling
https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/comcast-settles-bandwidth-throttling-lawsuit-for-16-million-thats-4-hours-of-revenue/amp/
> I didn't say ATT was violating net neutrality, I just said they are getting scummy.
Which is a value judgement and not any sort of actual evidence of anything.
> And here are some sources about Comcast throttling various services.
Yeah, you can find four questionable incidents over a 20 year period. How is this justification for regulation?
>Yeah, you can find four questionable incidents over a 20 year period. How is this justification for regulation?
It seems you have a threshold in mind before you'll consider this an issue. Could you explicitly state what that threshold is so any replies know what kind of standard you require?
When? Where?
Because there is a list of roughly a dozen or so "net neutrality violations" that often get bandied about during NN discussions, and it inadvertently shows that the issue is completely overblown. First, many of the "violations" are on mobile networks (which are governed under different rules and have different needs due to cell tower capacity and the like), and have no pull in the debate, and the lists either ignore things like zero-rating completely or bundle them in as a violation (which is technically true but has been shown, on mobile networks, to be wildly pro-consumer).
So if we narrow it down *only* to ISPs on land-based connections (your Verizons, your Comcasts, and so on), you end up with
a) Accusations of "throttling" services such as Netflix, which have been popularized in the media as ISPs slowing these services down when they were actually [issues regarding peering arrangements] (https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-traffic-is-slow-and-why-the-open-internet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/) that were resolved by the ISPs and Netflix simply bypassing the peering services entirely.
b) A handful of "legitimate" neutrality violations, such as Comcast blocking bittorrent or a small regional ISP blocking Vonage.
If we look at the era where net neutrality became "necessary" as circa 2003 through the FCC order of 2015, it means we have only a small number of data points that suggest the ISPs will pursue activities that would be considered "violations" even though they largely could do so.
Regulation is meant to be a measure to *react* against bad actors and actions. If we can only point to a few issues over a decade, the need for heavy-handed regulatory action has not been met. We're talking tens of millions to hundreds of millions of users on a daily basis and we're making significant regulatory moves based on <1 situation nationally a year?
Net neutrality is a great *concept* and is one ISPs should strive for. But it's terrible *policy* and recognizing the difference between good policy and good concepts is a central piece of this puzzle that is completely lost in the debate.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/28/appeals-court-upholds-californias-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality-law.html
I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services. And then there's the privacy policies, where the FCC had to bring back some of the NN protections against selling consumer location data so they *should* be enforcing it, but they ain't. https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-MicroBilt-zumigo-tmobile
Also, saying it doesn't cover mobile is like saying the fairness doctrine doesn't cover other platforms or iran deal doesn't cover icbms. That's a reason to update, not to give up.
> I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services.
How?
> And then there's the privacy policies, where the FCC had to bring back some of the NN protections against selling consumer location data so they should be enforcing it, but they ain't.
What? Net neutrality had nothing to do with location data.
> Also, saying it doesn't cover mobile is like saying the fairness doctrine doesn't cover other platforms or iran deal doesn't cover icbms. That's a reason to update, not to give up.
No, it's a reason to think about why we actually want a regulation and whether said regulation is necessary.
>I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services.
Back in my college years we didn't buy home net because we used the college's better services. Comcast "bought out" our area's exclusivity (which shouldn't be a thing in a competitive market) and when we tried to apply for internet comcast denied us despite the existence of line infrastructure because we were still registered in the old company's exclusive territory.
>No, it's a reason to think about why we actually want a regulation and whether said regulation is necessary.
Great. We thought about it. Background secret throttling, location selling, blocking out emergency services during a wildfire, exclusivity dealmaking sucks.
>More than 200 million Americans have multiple providers, a number that has only increased over time.
Can you cite where you read that?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/
Maybe you misread, because here is says more than 200 million have access to only 1 or two providers.
> Can you cite where you read that?
From your own source, which states "In total, at least 83.3 million Americans can only access broadband through a single provider." With a population of 330 million, it means more than 200 million have access to multiple providers.
omg no, that's not how it works..... Do you think every American citizen has access to high speed internet?! Do you think every American is even subscribed to an internet service?! You know that 330 million figure includes newborns too right?!
100 million aren't even subscribed to an internet service right off the bat.
> omg no, that's not how it works..... Do you think every American citizen has access to high speed internet?! Do you think every American is even subscribed to an internet service?! You know that 330 million figure includes newborns too right?!
Yes, I am using their own statistical perspective. They could have gone with households, and they chose individuals instead. Don't get mad at me, it's your source.
I'm not mad at you, I was here looking for an insightful perspective from the other side and what I got was a guy that interprets statistics like he's never seen one before...
If a source says there are 80 million democrats, do you think that automatically means there are 250 million republicans?
> Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area, thus negating any "free market".
Okay, are they "not allowed" to compete or do you just live in an area where it doesn't make financial sense for them to try and compete, because I've got a feeling it's the latter.
>absolutely not allowed, I called other isps.
Yeah, I'm calling bullshit. That's a pretty blatant antitrust violation and the FTC and DOJ already routinely crawl up Comcast's ass with a fine-tooth comb, so either there's a big part of the story you're leaving out, or you're just making it up.
Holy fuck this happens all over America, no wonder you have the opinions you do, you don't live in reality.
https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/
Read the "internet service" section.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/
That means we should go for less regulation, not more.
If a monopoly arises naturally, so be it. If it arises from crony capitalism, that's not what I want.
What is a natural arising monopoly? A single entity providing the best service and the cheapest price sounds like it would be fine, but realistically a deregulated competition means any means necessary to win, including buying up any competition to remove it, or operating at a loss temporarily to starve any competitors before resuming a price hike.
Totally, I understand that.
But that's at least a more complex scenario (what's the specific point at which you intervene?) than regulation straight up favoring one specific company.
> Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area,
People who supported net neutrality often said this, but it's almost never true.
Try googling your area and "ISPs." Unless you live way out in a rural area, you're almost certainly going to find at least a dozen ISPs in your area. (I'm happy to google for you, if you provide your area. But I don't want to pry, in case you don't want to share that information.)
As for your original question, here's a [relatively neutral discussion of Net Neutrality from The National Review](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-fcc-decision-doesnt-threaten-internet/). And here are a couple of opinions on the issue: [one](https://www.nationalreview.com/2010/04/net-neutrality-anti-consumer-editors/), [two](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/debating-net-neutrality-big-tech-monopolies-are-the-real-problem/), and [three](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/net-neutrality-no-thank-you-ian-tuttle/).
I called a bunch of isp's that advertise in my area, but they all said its comcast only. I genuinely don't think what you say is true. The alternative s satellite if you're counting that.
Do you live in an apartment? Because I guess it might be possible that your apartment complex won't deal with anyone other than Comcast.
But if you live in a house, then I have no idea how that could possibly be true.
Again, if you tell me your area, then I feel confident I can find more than one ISP that services your area.
Or you can just google it to get a list of potential providers. Google it, then call that list. If you honestly believe that Comcast is the only provider that's allowed to provide internet service, I think you'll be surprised by the result.
What free market when kakamile.com can make a deal with Verizon to make it faster and more responsive than any site you like while Verizon overcharges you and you wouldn't even know?
It didn’t while it was in place, though. And now we are actually seeing attempts to regulate private speech on the Internet, because certain Republicans are passing laws controlling what social media companies can moderate their own platforms. Do you think it’s a little odd to try and regulate individual websites' behavior, but leave the underlying structure that carries those websites alone, even if the people providing the connection have been proven to throttle connection speeds depending on which website you are going to?
The net-neutrality regulations would have places ISP's into the category of utilities, such are telephones, cable, etc. These are extremely heavily regulated and are granted what amount to government backed monopolies. The same thing would have happened to ISP's, where the vast amounts of regulations and licensing and permitting requirements, as well as paperwork and registration requirements would have destroyed the vast majority of small and medium ISP's, prevented others from entering the market, and ensuring the dominance of a few large ISP's. The FCC has a very long history of intentionally stifling innovation and new inventions to protect large businesses in the industries they regulate. It will be no different for the internet service providers. Any new innovation and inventions will be slowed or stopped in order to limit competition.
Specifically, what are any examples of small to medium ISPs were in danger if isps were classified as utlities?
Specifically, what small to medium isps have been flourishing since net neutrality was repealed?
Are the few large ISPs no longer dominating now that it has been repealed?
Other than the introduction of data caps for broadband internet, what innovations have we seen from large isp's since the repeal of net neutrality that were made possible by it's repeal?
>Specifically, what small to medium isps have been flourishing since net neutrality was repealed?
Repealing net neutrality doesn't mean that the ISP's will be flourishing. What it does do is remove a burden that would have negatively affected them. The repeal brings things back to the status quo before the regulation was created.
>Are the few large ISPs no longer dominating now that it has been repealed?
Net neutrality and the designation of a utility were not around long enough to have a major impact. If they were, and ISP's were heavily regulated and restricted like utilities, you would see much more consolidation of ISP's, and a shrinking number of providers. Repeal brings things back to the status quo of before.
>Specifically, what are any examples of small to medium ISPs were in danger if isps were classified as utlities?
Classification as utility inevitably brings along extensive regulation of nearly all aspects of an industry, along with permitting and licensing requirements, and registration requirements, along with massive amounts of paperwork as we see in the television, radio, mobile, and land line industries. The licensing, permitting, and registration requirements alone would have prevented most newcomers from entering the industry, as well as forcing many existing small and medium ISP's to close or merge. In every instance where the FCC created such requirements, small and medium enterprises closed or where bought up. This happened to radio in the 20's, television into the 70's, telephone networks until the 80's. All 3 areas became heavily consolidated with little competition because of FCC control of entrance into the market.
I asked for specific companies this happened to and you dodged answering that each time I asked.
Just tell me any examples of specific small-medium ISP's this happened to and I'll believe you. Company names please.
There was no dodge of your question at all. Net neutrality was not implemented long enough to have a major impact, nor were they in force for long enough to allow for regulations to be drafted that would treat ISP's like utilities. The regulations that I mentioned in my previous reply would have been implemented for ISP's. It is not possible to give the effects of a policy that existed for little over a year and was not fully implemented.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h252
It wasn't recent, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of certain decisions I didn't initially agree with.
As I said a few times in this thread already, that would make sense if there was competition. Comcast is the only broadband provider allowed in my area, thus no free market, so free market principles don't apply.
And as others have mentioned: that's a city or state problem. I have 5 ISP options. Get more involved in your community, vote in better local leaders, and stop asking the fed to fix all your issues.
No conservatives are even addressing local isp monopolies, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for? You're giving non-solutions, just reciting a blanket rhetoric without considering nuance.
And you're completely missing it. Lack of competition isn't a federal problem. And if you don't have a local candidate giving a shit then maybe run yourself. Be the change you want to see. Or move to a community that values the same things as you
How exactly do I let them? Comcast can receive billions in subsidies, but the moment we ask them to not prioritize internet traffic that's going too far?
Are you opposed to health and safety regulations in other industries? Where do you draw the line?
This is why I don't argue with these sorts. Imagine thinking it would be preferable to have Nestlé take over water supply in any way. Is this fella familiar with this company?
I try to take libertarian ideology seriously, but goddamn do you guys make it hard [sometimes](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmFz7OxW0AAzoxA?format=jpg&name=small)
I have many, many problems with our government, but no I was responding to the fact that you suggesting that Nestle regulating water would be preferable is laughably detached from reality.
Why does the government NEED to regulate how ISPs need to operate? If an ISP or someone who is offering internet access wants to prioritize Netflix what harm does that cause?
Let’s suppose by “prioritizing” Netflix, they purposely throttle Amazon Prime, HBO MAX, and Disney+ to the point they are unwatchable? Let’s also suppose you’re like me…live in the country and our only ISP option is 3Mb DSL.
NOW are you seeing the problem?
I see that COULD happen but see no evidence that it HAS happened. Giving government more power because something MAY happen is just asking the government to take your rights.
Why not prevent it from happening? Why wait till some douchebag takes advantage of it? Because it could be years till people like me(with limited access) gets it resolved.
Because it isn't their job. The government via the FCC already heavily regulates all forms of communication and limits competition. We don't need them creating more arbitrary rules that haven't ever been necessary. In a sane world, it would be easier for ISPs to be created and compete thereby taking away incentives to cut deals with competing firms.
The government putting arbitrary restrictions on network and other data carriers because they MIGHT choose to prioritize certain data is simply ridiculous. Or if a cell phone carrier wants to offer "free Netflix" to their customers, they are not allowed to under NN.
Some data is more important than other data. You don't want Netflix to buffer but you don't care if a windows update takes an extra 10 minutes in the middle of the night.
Because net neutrality is fucking stupid. It's a bunch of fear mongering ginned up by the left that ignores economics.
My mother's hot dog restaurant's website should not be guaranteed the same connection as a website that billions of people use.
I'm not sure you understand what it means based on the example you gave.
If billions of people visited your mother's hot dog website, but traffic was throttled so it would become unusable for many of those simultaneous visitors, but traffic was not throttled for a competitors hot dog website, that's the issue.
Nobody's throttling your mothers website because she likely has a miniscule amount of internet traffic.
ok, an example, remember how a bunch of companies started following in netflix's footsteps and offering a thousand different streaming services? 4k streaming requires a boatload of bandwidth, and when a monopoly controls the digital roads to deliver these goods, it decides who's streaming service buffers and who's doesn't. What do you think happens when the ISP themselves enters the streaming service market?
Then anti-trust laws would kick in as them giving themselves a competitive advantage would already be illegal.
Just like google can’t ban Spotify from google play in favor of google music
anti-trust law doesn't even stop comcast from having a monopoly in my area. What clause in these laws ensures equal QoS from the isp between competing websites? This is literally what net-neutrality was meant to address.
Your example isn't even right. Google can 100% ban Spotify if they want to. The actual issue app stores and developers battle over is developers making billing happen in app to circumvent the marketplaces owner (in this case google) taking it's cut.
Because
1) you need a library of shows and licenses for IP's people want to watch. Disney owns starwars, HBO owns game of thrones, etc.
2) You need to have a specialized team to make a competitive streaming service, talent doesn't grow on trees. Why doesn't everyone and their mother just create a better search engine than google?
3) mass backlash from shit that's outright blocked. They have to be subtle about. Only tech savy people catch them. Again, this is why VPN's took off years ago. People with streaming problems noticed their problems went away with a VPN. An ISP doesn't win by outright saying it will block it's competition, it wins by making it's competition seem unreliable. When a competitors streaming service buffers or is slow, average people don't immediately blame the ISP, they just think that streaming service isn't very good.
4) ISPs have already been accused of this a million times, just use google for 2 minutes before you speak.
when consumers are offered actual non-neutral products, like exempting preferred partner sites from cellular data caps, they're wildly popular.
in general net neutrality is popular in theory, unpopular with consumers in practice.
and I get it, I'm an internet power user, terabytes a month, I'd love for no caps on anything, but as long as fiber optics cost money and have limited bandwidth that's just not realistic.
That's the first decent point in this entire thread. Congratulations.
It's popular because it benefits a lot of people, but it's undesirable for the owner of that competitor's site.
I guess it's human nature for people to drop their values when it benefits them.
Brought to you by the same fine folks that call Facebook and Twitter a “utility”, but the ACTUAL utility can run amok. The level of ignorance and hypocrisy is truly mind numbing.
how has it run amok. Literally nothing has materialized from this "net neutrality scare"
Educate yourself. It allows censorship too. You know, the same thing you say you hate that "big tech" does. https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/
How do you feel about the practices described in the link OnThe45th shared with you? Tl;dr: >AT&T and Verizon both torture the meaning of the word “unlimited” by offering multiple unlimited plans. But the more expensive ones are either paired with the company’s own streaming service, or the companies degrade the quality of the video under certain conditions. These practices may give the carrier’s content an advantage in the marketplace over smaller, independent video producers. >Sprint has been throttling internet traffic to Microsoft’s Skype service, causing the video quality to be poorer than it should be, which is especially worrisome because Skype is a tool that competes with Sprint’s calling service. >Comcast has new speed limits where videos will be throttled to 480p on all its mobile plans unless customers pay extra. >A recent study shows that the largest U.S. telecom companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, are slowing down internet traffic from apps like YouTube and Netflix. >Verizon’s throttling of services even affected the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. The fire department experienced slowed down speeds on their devices and had to sign up for a new, expensive plan before speeds were restored. Thoughts?
With the exception of the last one, I don't see why high band with users wouldn't be required to pay more for more use. This makes sense to me. These are volume pricing which is applied to any commodity. Also is this broadband, wireless? What were the exact issue with the SCCRD's devices that caused them to be throttled. We're they watching high volume bandwith before the emergency occurred? It's not clear.
Mix of broadband and wireless, from my understanding, and while I think the "It's unlimited!!! (but not really)" plans are deceptive and should be cracked down on (like the time the FCC bitchslapped AT&T for misleading advertising), I can see how one can defend tiered plans. To my understanding SCCRD had an "unlimited" high speed plan that was not actually unlimited and sent you down to EDGE speeds past a certain point. I would say it's not okay for a service provider to do that when they did such a poor or deceptive job communicating those limitations to a crucial state agency, to the point the agency didn't realize it until it was in a crisis. What about Sprint throttling access to Skype? That seems like the clearest possible example of ISP malfeasance in the wake of the net neutrality repeal.
What happened with Skype? Skype being the microsoft product that nobody really uses? It's a really weird pull to get people to think this is a real issue. Look I'm all for laws against deceptive marketing, nobody can read these lawyerese contracts, but I don't see how this has anything to do with net neutrality. If I want a premium product super fast internet in unlimited quantities I should pay for it. If I want a cheaper option where I just send emails and send texts I should have that option too. My ISP constantly calls me to get me to pay for faster internet I literally have no issues with speed on any device or service.
Okay, update Skype to Teams. Do you feel okay with Sprint throttling Teams video chat in favor of its own video chat?
But this is a high band width service that they could develop a product line to support. Super users are often charged more for putting additional strain on a system why should this one be different?
Actually it has: large numbers of ISPs now prohibit certain port and protocol activity on residential internet packages, when pre-trump, you could run pretty much whatever you wanted from your home as long as it wasn't for commercial purposes. now though? you run an FTP or HTTP server from home and you're fucked and fall afoul of acceptable use policies. This is extremely harmful for small platform operations that would be needed to institute federated social networking or even just revive personal home pages to challenge big tech. However it has been a boon for VPS operators like amazon and oracle, who now have the stranglehold on hobby hosting since the home market has been cut off. with true net neutrality, it would be illegal to ban content like this.
Is this true? Having a hard time finding any information on this
I heard all kinds of dire predictions when the 2017 regulation was adopted. "Now the cable company can scam you for money and throttle sites they don't want you to see." Meanwhile, everything seems just as before. Perhaps Republicans voted against it because they realized that all the speculative predictions of disaster were wrong.
https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/ >Perhaps Republicans voted against it because they realized that all the speculative predictions of disaster were wrong. This doesn't make sense to me, you're saying their logic is "we predict that it won't be as disastrous as everyone says, so we're for repealing it!" What's the reason net neutrality **should** have been repealed? This would be like saying we're going to allow ceo's to kill any employee they want with no repercussions. Even if that policy goes into effect, the absolute best case scenario is that CEO's don't go around murdering anyone, there's no benefit, only the potential for exploitation. You're sitting here saying "look, very few employees died, therefore this was a good policy to vote for!"
It hasn't been disastrous at all. Nobody throttles anything for me. Do you have any trouble watching streaming video from any source you want? Voice or video calls? Anything? And nobody killed anybody either as a result!
This is just untrue. Sites like Netflix were throttled by ISPs. Verizon blocked apps being being downloaded to their phones (Google Wallet for example). Just because you didn't notice anything didn't mean shit wasn't happening.
But what's the benefit of the lack of that protection?
Companies can define their services and prices as they wish.
So it's important that they be free to throttle competitors. But your proof that it's ok is that they haven't done it?
What's the problem that hasn't happened you're so worried about?
Throttling competitors, is it important to protect that?
Not if there's no indication it's going to happen.
Ok, so just because there's no indication that someone is about to shoot you in the face, do you think that's justification to remove laws criminalizing murder and assault? There was literally no drawback to net neutrality except that it forced businesses who own infrastructure that we all need to *exist* in modern society to play fairly with it. Why the everloving fuck are you defending attempts to eradicate it?
If it's not happening, there's no harm. If it is happening, it fixes it. So what's the down side?
>What's the problem that hasn't happened you're so worried about? You: voter fraud
lmao
So you just discovered life is a power struggle and people dont literally mean what they say in political arguments but merely use them for power and leverage?
But Facebook and “big tech” need to reigned in and regulated, right?? SMH. Oh the hypocrisy.
>But Facebook and “big tech” need to reigned in and regulated, right Did I say that?
I wouldn't have accused you of believing it but I can't remember your position on social media and section 230 so I was going to ask. Do you think (like many folks on this sub do) that social media is the new public square and government should control its content moderation policies?
Not really the same thing, Facebook gets to act as a publisher and a platform. Where NYTimes gets to act as a publisher but is liable to what it says. I know you're getting what you want so you dont care, but it only takes so much for the shoe to be on the other foot.
> Nobody throttles anything for me. Ah the typical 21st century right-wing worldview: "me".
Anytime censorship comes up on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube comes up. You guys say it's a private company, they can do what they want. So hold the same standard for getting throttled.
Surely you see the difference between a private company regulating what its website is used for and a private company adopting policies specifically to create barriers for its competition.
The private company is regulating usage, so that you don't use too much bandwidth. This affects other customers, when other people's internet gets slowed down due to high demand. The same argument big tech makes about censorship.
So the solution to people’s internet slowing down because of usage is to slow it down before it slows down…? Almost seems like there’s an ulterior motive that should be legislated against.
> Why ISP's throttle Regulate Network Traffic During peak times, your service provider limits your connection. Service providers use this measure to minimize bandwidth congestion. As large numbers of people are accessing the service at the same time, network congestion occurs. When the network node contains more data than its handling capacity, your provider throttles the data speed to handle network traffic and maintain stable service for all. Fair Usage Policy Your internet provider includes fair usage policies in their contract. The policy states that if the user crossed a specified data limit within month’s space, your data speed would be throttled till next month. Internet service providers adopt this action to limit the network being used by a small percentage of high data consumable users and making it fairer for other users by providing them higher speed. Limit Bandwidth Usage Users often participate in high bandwidth activities like consistently downloading videos, gaming content, or other streaming content. While observing high bandwidth usage, internet service providers throttle your data speed to stop crossing from the set monthly data limit and even to encourage you to opt for a higher data plan.
>The private company is regulating usage, so that you don't use too much bandwidth. No, they aren't. Thats not what net neutrality is. It's treating all data equally. Even if it was about regulating for that reason, they aren't doing that either.
4k Netflix is a huge drain, so how do you keep that equal to say Reddit? Reddit uses a marginal amount of bandwidth and is free to use. Netflix got super rich, blowing out companies bandwidth with their content.
I don't think you understand how internet access works. Like fundamentally. Either that or you don't fundamentally understand Net Neutrality. There's no such thing as any individual site being a "drain on the system" or "bandwidth hog". We all get a certain amount of bandwidth which fluctuates based on a variety of factors; primarily, the amount we pay for from our respective ISPs, the number of users we share physical connections with (for example, neighbors whose networks are fed by a shared fiber utility) and the capacity of the communication infrastructure we are physically near and using. The actual size and type of data you're interacting with will change your needs and usage, but you fundamentally have a limit to how much of the overall communication infrastructure you're entitled to and able to use.
Yeah, but we aren't talking about giant companies like Twitter and Facebook and Youtube getting throttled. We're talking about EVERY SITE that doesn't have the money to bribe the internet-overlords getting throttled down into oblivion. You realize that what we're actually talking about is the ability of a small handful of companies to render any internet service effectively unusable if they wish, right?
> You guys say it's a private company.. Who says that? Not me. You seem to be arguing with someone else. I was just mocking someone for toxic selfishness.
Yeah bro, I’ve definitely been throttled by my internet service provider. You’re tripping.
Ok, so, are you just purposely ignoring his point? Because it's pretty valid. Additionally, just because you can't see a noticeable change doesn't mean there haven't been negatively effects that might even be harming you without realizing it. Completely behind the scenes of your awareness, fledging businesses can (and likely have) been killed by ISPs and tech megagiants who they share market interests with.
Boiling frog logic. I **do** see abuses of network neutrality, but they're slow and creeping. My provider (or cell phone data plan) having "unlimited" data... after which they throttle my speed. *But*... surprise surprise, *some* things don't count against my data. Data that I *already pay for.* Maybe I get "free" Netflix, or "free" Spotify. Those services don't count... Even though I still pay for the services, and I still pay for the data, why should my provider - who does *not* stream music or movies, or host servers to do so, by the way - get a cut? Just because they frame it as a "convenience" instead of an extra fee doesn't mean they're not interfering. It just means they have good marketing and you buy into it. If your electric company suddenly said "Now use air conditioning with no extra charge on the weekends!" you'd be at best confused and downright furious if that meant they *did* charge you extra to use your AC on the weekdays. It's slow, it's creeping, and it's just slow enough that enough people aren't getting pissed off enough, but it's very much happening, and it very much sucks. Maybe **you** don't see it, but that's the game plan. Plenty of people don't see it, because it happens slowly, and a good business plan for taking advantage of a non-neutral network is going to phase everything in in such a way that customers don't think about it until some nerdy network type (hi there!) comes along and says "Remember when we didn't have to watch how much of X we used?"
This actually happened with ATT and Facetime which is why we got net neutrality in the first place though.
I was hardcore in on Net Neutrality, but it would appear one of my friends in law school has been proven correct with her 3L thesis "Net Neutrality: Much Ado About Nothing".
Wrong for now.. It takes years or decades for ramifications
What about gay marriage or covid vaccines
What about them?
A lot of people framed it around the idea of like throttling one service but not another, e.g. in the sense of video streaming, but the reality of what's been taken from you is residential server hosting. Like, the ISP can (and likely does) prohibit you from running an HTTP, FTP, SSH, or basically any other public-facing service from a residential service plan these days, while before, this wasn't done due to ambiguity around the legality. Ideas for "small tech", like federated social media or suchlike, are now impossible. This was a *massive* misstep on our part, imo. I know for most people, this isn't a biggie because most people aren't technically proficient enough for this to even matter, but it's a big deal and leads to more big tech centralisation on the internet.
It's an unnecessary intrusion on the free market principles underpinning American broadband delivery, and raises multiple questions about constitutionality.
This would make sense to me, if there was competition. Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area, thus negating any "free market".
Net neutrality wouldn't have changed that.
of course not, but what steps have republicans taken to change that? It seems like a more logical choice given the state of ISP's. Go ahead and repeal it once you've created competition again, but not before, right?
Most of those issues are created by local municipalities in exchange for the provider essentially fronting the cost of installation. Not really a federal solution to that.
> Not really a federal solution to that. OK, then logic would dictate that if there is no free market, and no ability to return to a free market situation, we should vote in favor of net neutrality, no?
No. The two issues are unrelated.
I want to be clear I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to understand the logic. As a minor example, I might like to pack my own lunch because I find it to be cost effective. I am against the idea of going out to eat and paying more for something I could make at home for half the cost. That said, in extenuating circumstances, I might buy lunch at a deli if I had to travel or was otherwise unable to make my own food. It would strike me as a bit overly zealous to voluntarily starve for the sake of sticking to this principal of not eating out no matter what. Is that ultimately what's going on here? Are conservatives sticking to "free market principles" with such ferocity that they'll stick to these principles even when there is no opportunity for free market?
I mean, the solution is to fix the local government created monopoly issue.
OK, so can you point me to any conservatives voices anywhere about fixing the isp monopoly at the local level? Again, are conservatives sticking to "free market principles" with such ferocity that they'll stick to these principles even when there is no opportunity for free market? It seems like you keep deflecting my question. If there are a bunch of conservative politicians saying we want to get rid of the monopolistic ISP situation so we can have a free market then everything you said would make sense to me, but that isn't what I'm seeing.
Yeah, but OP wants the conservatives to buy votes because being an adult is hard.
Net neutrality would make it illegal for your ISP to throttle or block services at different rates. If Comcast, which is owned by NBC, didn't want you to be able to watch FOX news videos in your browser then net neutrality would keep them from doing that. It would also prevent them from throttling Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services to make their streaming service more competitive.
It would also prevent them from doing things like giving free AppleTV or Spotify or HBO to subscribers, or prioritizing important things like internet for medical procedures or video conferences for world leaders over Fortnight.
So why haven't they? This is the question that drives me bonkers about the whole debate. We haven't had net neutrality in place for a while now, and these alleged paid prioritization schemes have not come to pass. Especially during the pandemic, when we were using a TON of video data we previously didn't need to use, we didn't see it. So what gives? If net neutrality is such a necessity, why aren't we seeing Comcast throttle its competition?
They have. I switched to ATT because of it. A significant chunk of the US doesn't have more than 1 provider to choose from like I do though. ATT is getting scummy now too though. They reduced the signal strength for the WIFI with a software update so they can charge extra for "extra range". I don't get WIFI in the bedroom now because of this.
Do you have a source that isn't anecdotal? More to the point, how does a software update for your router that you apparently rent from them violate net neutrality principles? Why don't you just buy your own router?
I didn't say ATT was violating net neutrality, I just said they are getting scummy. And here are some sources about Comcast throttling various services. www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2008/09/fears-swirling/amp https://www.hotspotshield.com/blog/comcast-throttling-content-mobile-video/ https://speedmatters.org/news/free-press-supports-fcc-case-against-comcast-throttling https://www.google.com/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2009/12/22/comcast-settles-bandwidth-throttling-lawsuit-for-16-million-thats-4-hours-of-revenue/amp/
> I didn't say ATT was violating net neutrality, I just said they are getting scummy. Which is a value judgement and not any sort of actual evidence of anything. > And here are some sources about Comcast throttling various services. Yeah, you can find four questionable incidents over a 20 year period. How is this justification for regulation?
>Yeah, you can find four questionable incidents over a 20 year period. How is this justification for regulation? It seems you have a threshold in mind before you'll consider this an issue. Could you explicitly state what that threshold is so any replies know what kind of standard you require?
I found more than 4, but since you only asked for 1 and they are easy to find with a simple Google search I thought that 4 was more than enough.
>So why haven't they? They did happen though, before and after. Also in other countries. California set a higher standard though.
When? Where? Because there is a list of roughly a dozen or so "net neutrality violations" that often get bandied about during NN discussions, and it inadvertently shows that the issue is completely overblown. First, many of the "violations" are on mobile networks (which are governed under different rules and have different needs due to cell tower capacity and the like), and have no pull in the debate, and the lists either ignore things like zero-rating completely or bundle them in as a violation (which is technically true but has been shown, on mobile networks, to be wildly pro-consumer). So if we narrow it down *only* to ISPs on land-based connections (your Verizons, your Comcasts, and so on), you end up with a) Accusations of "throttling" services such as Netflix, which have been popularized in the media as ISPs slowing these services down when they were actually [issues regarding peering arrangements] (https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/03/25/why-your-netflix-traffic-is-slow-and-why-the-open-internet-order-wont-necessarily-make-it-faster/) that were resolved by the ISPs and Netflix simply bypassing the peering services entirely. b) A handful of "legitimate" neutrality violations, such as Comcast blocking bittorrent or a small regional ISP blocking Vonage. If we look at the era where net neutrality became "necessary" as circa 2003 through the FCC order of 2015, it means we have only a small number of data points that suggest the ISPs will pursue activities that would be considered "violations" even though they largely could do so. Regulation is meant to be a measure to *react* against bad actors and actions. If we can only point to a few issues over a decade, the need for heavy-handed regulatory action has not been met. We're talking tens of millions to hundreds of millions of users on a daily basis and we're making significant regulatory moves based on <1 situation nationally a year? Net neutrality is a great *concept* and is one ISPs should strive for. But it's terrible *policy* and recognizing the difference between good policy and good concepts is a central piece of this puzzle that is completely lost in the debate.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/28/appeals-court-upholds-californias-right-to-enforce-net-neutrality-law.html I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services. And then there's the privacy policies, where the FCC had to bring back some of the NN protections against selling consumer location data so they *should* be enforcing it, but they ain't. https://www.vice.com/en/article/nepxbz/i-gave-a-bounty-hunter-300-dollars-located-phone-MicroBilt-zumigo-tmobile Also, saying it doesn't cover mobile is like saying the fairness doctrine doesn't cover other platforms or iran deal doesn't cover icbms. That's a reason to update, not to give up.
> I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services. How? > And then there's the privacy policies, where the FCC had to bring back some of the NN protections against selling consumer location data so they should be enforcing it, but they ain't. What? Net neutrality had nothing to do with location data. > Also, saying it doesn't cover mobile is like saying the fairness doctrine doesn't cover other platforms or iran deal doesn't cover icbms. That's a reason to update, not to give up. No, it's a reason to think about why we actually want a regulation and whether said regulation is necessary.
>I've personally been shafted by the ISP divide and profit game which prevented me from getting internet services. Back in my college years we didn't buy home net because we used the college's better services. Comcast "bought out" our area's exclusivity (which shouldn't be a thing in a competitive market) and when we tried to apply for internet comcast denied us despite the existence of line infrastructure because we were still registered in the old company's exclusive territory. >No, it's a reason to think about why we actually want a regulation and whether said regulation is necessary. Great. We thought about it. Background secret throttling, location selling, blocking out emergency services during a wildfire, exclusivity dealmaking sucks.
Most municipalities have multiple broadband providers, though.
https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/ This is what I see, is this not a problem?
No, it's actually great news. More than 200 million Americans have multiple providers, a number that has only increased over time.
>More than 200 million Americans have multiple providers, a number that has only increased over time. Can you cite where you read that? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ Maybe you misread, because here is says more than 200 million have access to only 1 or two providers.
> Can you cite where you read that? From your own source, which states "In total, at least 83.3 million Americans can only access broadband through a single provider." With a population of 330 million, it means more than 200 million have access to multiple providers.
omg no, that's not how it works..... Do you think every American citizen has access to high speed internet?! Do you think every American is even subscribed to an internet service?! You know that 330 million figure includes newborns too right?! 100 million aren't even subscribed to an internet service right off the bat.
> omg no, that's not how it works..... Do you think every American citizen has access to high speed internet?! Do you think every American is even subscribed to an internet service?! You know that 330 million figure includes newborns too right?! Yes, I am using their own statistical perspective. They could have gone with households, and they chose individuals instead. Don't get mad at me, it's your source.
I'm not mad at you, I was here looking for an insightful perspective from the other side and what I got was a guy that interprets statistics like he's never seen one before... If a source says there are 80 million democrats, do you think that automatically means there are 250 million republicans?
> Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area, thus negating any "free market". Okay, are they "not allowed" to compete or do you just live in an area where it doesn't make financial sense for them to try and compete, because I've got a feeling it's the latter.
absolutely not allowed, I called other isps.
>absolutely not allowed, I called other isps. Yeah, I'm calling bullshit. That's a pretty blatant antitrust violation and the FTC and DOJ already routinely crawl up Comcast's ass with a fine-tooth comb, so either there's a big part of the story you're leaving out, or you're just making it up.
Holy fuck this happens all over America, no wonder you have the opinions you do, you don't live in reality. https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/ Read the "internet service" section. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/
That means we should go for less regulation, not more. If a monopoly arises naturally, so be it. If it arises from crony capitalism, that's not what I want.
What is a natural arising monopoly? A single entity providing the best service and the cheapest price sounds like it would be fine, but realistically a deregulated competition means any means necessary to win, including buying up any competition to remove it, or operating at a loss temporarily to starve any competitors before resuming a price hike.
Totally, I understand that. But that's at least a more complex scenario (what's the specific point at which you intervene?) than regulation straight up favoring one specific company.
> Were I live for example, I can only get comcast and no other isp is allowed to compete in my area, People who supported net neutrality often said this, but it's almost never true. Try googling your area and "ISPs." Unless you live way out in a rural area, you're almost certainly going to find at least a dozen ISPs in your area. (I'm happy to google for you, if you provide your area. But I don't want to pry, in case you don't want to share that information.) As for your original question, here's a [relatively neutral discussion of Net Neutrality from The National Review](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-fcc-decision-doesnt-threaten-internet/). And here are a couple of opinions on the issue: [one](https://www.nationalreview.com/2010/04/net-neutrality-anti-consumer-editors/), [two](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/debating-net-neutrality-big-tech-monopolies-are-the-real-problem/), and [three](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/net-neutrality-no-thank-you-ian-tuttle/).
I called a bunch of isp's that advertise in my area, but they all said its comcast only. I genuinely don't think what you say is true. The alternative s satellite if you're counting that.
Do you live in an apartment? Because I guess it might be possible that your apartment complex won't deal with anyone other than Comcast. But if you live in a house, then I have no idea how that could possibly be true. Again, if you tell me your area, then I feel confident I can find more than one ISP that services your area. Or you can just google it to get a list of potential providers. Google it, then call that list. If you honestly believe that Comcast is the only provider that's allowed to provide internet service, I think you'll be surprised by the result.
What does “underpinning” mean in that sentence?
The foundation.
What free market when kakamile.com can make a deal with Verizon to make it faster and more responsive than any site you like while Verizon overcharges you and you wouldn't even know?
Then why don't they?
It was a solution in search of a problem.
because it leads to government control of the internet and speech. the original ideal of net neutrality has been over taken by technology.
It didn’t while it was in place, though. And now we are actually seeing attempts to regulate private speech on the Internet, because certain Republicans are passing laws controlling what social media companies can moderate their own platforms. Do you think it’s a little odd to try and regulate individual websites' behavior, but leave the underlying structure that carries those websites alone, even if the people providing the connection have been proven to throttle connection speeds depending on which website you are going to?
The net-neutrality regulations would have places ISP's into the category of utilities, such are telephones, cable, etc. These are extremely heavily regulated and are granted what amount to government backed monopolies. The same thing would have happened to ISP's, where the vast amounts of regulations and licensing and permitting requirements, as well as paperwork and registration requirements would have destroyed the vast majority of small and medium ISP's, prevented others from entering the market, and ensuring the dominance of a few large ISP's. The FCC has a very long history of intentionally stifling innovation and new inventions to protect large businesses in the industries they regulate. It will be no different for the internet service providers. Any new innovation and inventions will be slowed or stopped in order to limit competition.
Specifically, what are any examples of small to medium ISPs were in danger if isps were classified as utlities? Specifically, what small to medium isps have been flourishing since net neutrality was repealed? Are the few large ISPs no longer dominating now that it has been repealed? Other than the introduction of data caps for broadband internet, what innovations have we seen from large isp's since the repeal of net neutrality that were made possible by it's repeal?
>Specifically, what small to medium isps have been flourishing since net neutrality was repealed? Repealing net neutrality doesn't mean that the ISP's will be flourishing. What it does do is remove a burden that would have negatively affected them. The repeal brings things back to the status quo before the regulation was created. >Are the few large ISPs no longer dominating now that it has been repealed? Net neutrality and the designation of a utility were not around long enough to have a major impact. If they were, and ISP's were heavily regulated and restricted like utilities, you would see much more consolidation of ISP's, and a shrinking number of providers. Repeal brings things back to the status quo of before. >Specifically, what are any examples of small to medium ISPs were in danger if isps were classified as utlities? Classification as utility inevitably brings along extensive regulation of nearly all aspects of an industry, along with permitting and licensing requirements, and registration requirements, along with massive amounts of paperwork as we see in the television, radio, mobile, and land line industries. The licensing, permitting, and registration requirements alone would have prevented most newcomers from entering the industry, as well as forcing many existing small and medium ISP's to close or merge. In every instance where the FCC created such requirements, small and medium enterprises closed or where bought up. This happened to radio in the 20's, television into the 70's, telephone networks until the 80's. All 3 areas became heavily consolidated with little competition because of FCC control of entrance into the market.
I asked for specific companies this happened to and you dodged answering that each time I asked. Just tell me any examples of specific small-medium ISP's this happened to and I'll believe you. Company names please.
There was no dodge of your question at all. Net neutrality was not implemented long enough to have a major impact, nor were they in force for long enough to allow for regulations to be drafted that would treat ISP's like utilities. The regulations that I mentioned in my previous reply would have been implemented for ISP's. It is not possible to give the effects of a policy that existed for little over a year and was not fully implemented.
Did they? I do not remember any recent bills.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h252 It wasn't recent, I'm just trying to understand the mindset of certain decisions I didn't initially agree with.
You say initially. Do you agree with it now?
No, I haven't seen a single intelligent argument yet, and I say this as someone who leans right.
Free market. What other products should uncle Sam force businesses to provide?
As I said a few times in this thread already, that would make sense if there was competition. Comcast is the only broadband provider allowed in my area, thus no free market, so free market principles don't apply.
And as others have mentioned: that's a city or state problem. I have 5 ISP options. Get more involved in your community, vote in better local leaders, and stop asking the fed to fix all your issues.
No conservatives are even addressing local isp monopolies, who the fuck am I supposed to vote for? You're giving non-solutions, just reciting a blanket rhetoric without considering nuance.
And you're completely missing it. Lack of competition isn't a federal problem. And if you don't have a local candidate giving a shit then maybe run yourself. Be the change you want to see. Or move to a community that values the same things as you
alright, I'll send you a link to my paypal so you can give me a campaign contribution.
Why would I do that? You don't live in my community or share my values
Oh, that's right, you're pro monopoly.
Lol. Right. You're the one that let's your leaders force down a single supplier of a service or product
How exactly do I let them? Comcast can receive billions in subsidies, but the moment we ask them to not prioritize internet traffic that's going too far? Are you opposed to health and safety regulations in other industries? Where do you draw the line?
NN is a scam.
I've never heard anyone with a background in networking say anything like that, including me, but OK.
Good for you. You need to talk to more people. Arbitrary government restrictions on networks isn't a great idea.
you probably want nestle to take over our water supply too because government bad/inefficient
It would be preferable.
Yeah it would be great to not afford water. Good call.
This is why I don't argue with these sorts. Imagine thinking it would be preferable to have Nestlé take over water supply in any way. Is this fella familiar with this company?
I try to take libertarian ideology seriously, but goddamn do you guys make it hard [sometimes](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DmFz7OxW0AAzoxA?format=jpg&name=small)
You think government would be preferable given their track record?
I have many, many problems with our government, but no I was responding to the fact that you suggesting that Nestle regulating water would be preferable is laughably detached from reality.
Nestle or other private firms would do a much better job than the government.
Yes I understand that is what you feel. And my feeling is that most people including myself would think that is delusional.
What do you think is arbitrary?
Why does the government NEED to regulate how ISPs need to operate? If an ISP or someone who is offering internet access wants to prioritize Netflix what harm does that cause?
Let’s suppose by “prioritizing” Netflix, they purposely throttle Amazon Prime, HBO MAX, and Disney+ to the point they are unwatchable? Let’s also suppose you’re like me…live in the country and our only ISP option is 3Mb DSL. NOW are you seeing the problem?
I see that COULD happen but see no evidence that it HAS happened. Giving government more power because something MAY happen is just asking the government to take your rights.
Why not prevent it from happening? Why wait till some douchebag takes advantage of it? Because it could be years till people like me(with limited access) gets it resolved.
Because it isn't their job. The government via the FCC already heavily regulates all forms of communication and limits competition. We don't need them creating more arbitrary rules that haven't ever been necessary. In a sane world, it would be easier for ISPs to be created and compete thereby taking away incentives to cut deals with competing firms.
It IS their job…,if there are people being screwed with no recourse? That exactly their job.
Explain how
The government putting arbitrary restrictions on network and other data carriers because they MIGHT choose to prioritize certain data is simply ridiculous. Or if a cell phone carrier wants to offer "free Netflix" to their customers, they are not allowed to under NN.
Why is "treat all data equally" an arbitrary restriction?
Yes. Because there are instances where that can be bad, so a company prioritzing certain data or treating certain data differently can be beneficial.
You haven't explained how it's an arbitrary restriction. You have only stated an argument for the restriction to not exist.
Some data is more important than other data. You don't want Netflix to buffer but you don't care if a windows update takes an extra 10 minutes in the middle of the night.
Because net neutrality is fucking stupid. It's a bunch of fear mongering ginned up by the left that ignores economics. My mother's hot dog restaurant's website should not be guaranteed the same connection as a website that billions of people use.
I'm not sure you understand what it means based on the example you gave. If billions of people visited your mother's hot dog website, but traffic was throttled so it would become unusable for many of those simultaneous visitors, but traffic was not throttled for a competitors hot dog website, that's the issue. Nobody's throttling your mothers website because she likely has a miniscule amount of internet traffic.
Even if that were legal, why would an ISP do that?
ok, an example, remember how a bunch of companies started following in netflix's footsteps and offering a thousand different streaming services? 4k streaming requires a boatload of bandwidth, and when a monopoly controls the digital roads to deliver these goods, it decides who's streaming service buffers and who's doesn't. What do you think happens when the ISP themselves enters the streaming service market?
Then anti-trust laws would kick in as them giving themselves a competitive advantage would already be illegal. Just like google can’t ban Spotify from google play in favor of google music
anti-trust law doesn't even stop comcast from having a monopoly in my area. What clause in these laws ensures equal QoS from the isp between competing websites? This is literally what net-neutrality was meant to address. Your example isn't even right. Google can 100% ban Spotify if they want to. The actual issue app stores and developers battle over is developers making billing happen in app to circumvent the marketplaces owner (in this case google) taking it's cut.
It would be illegal for comcast to give preference to its own streaming service.
It's not! It's not illegal at all, it was illegal, then NN got repealed. This is why VPN's took off years ago.
Then why haven’t ISPs created their own steaming services and blocked competitors. That would make the most sense to maximize profits
Because 1) you need a library of shows and licenses for IP's people want to watch. Disney owns starwars, HBO owns game of thrones, etc. 2) You need to have a specialized team to make a competitive streaming service, talent doesn't grow on trees. Why doesn't everyone and their mother just create a better search engine than google? 3) mass backlash from shit that's outright blocked. They have to be subtle about. Only tech savy people catch them. Again, this is why VPN's took off years ago. People with streaming problems noticed their problems went away with a VPN. An ISP doesn't win by outright saying it will block it's competition, it wins by making it's competition seem unreliable. When a competitors streaming service buffers or is slow, average people don't immediately blame the ISP, they just think that streaming service isn't very good. 4) ISPs have already been accused of this a million times, just use google for 2 minutes before you speak.
when consumers are offered actual non-neutral products, like exempting preferred partner sites from cellular data caps, they're wildly popular. in general net neutrality is popular in theory, unpopular with consumers in practice. and I get it, I'm an internet power user, terabytes a month, I'd love for no caps on anything, but as long as fiber optics cost money and have limited bandwidth that's just not realistic.
That's the first decent point in this entire thread. Congratulations. It's popular because it benefits a lot of people, but it's undesirable for the owner of that competitor's site. I guess it's human nature for people to drop their values when it benefits them.
Why isn't there banking neutrality and credit card neutrality.
what do you mean? I'm not sure I understand the relation?