FCC is about to repeal Net Neutrality

[Mr.Chaos]

I think a lot of this had to do with the death of cable tv. *cough* comcast, ATT, etc. Netlifx and other streaming services are killing them. I could see google fiber using its stance on complete neutrality to win over a large percentage of other ISP's customer bases.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

Just a general statement here, but anyone who thinks putting unelected bureaucrats in charge of something needs to have their head examined. What could go wrong?

 

[Willing2Learn]

Sounds like controlling to me.

Yes it does. And these companies will reap the rewards from it.

 

[c4n]

I am a bit surprised by many replies here. One would expect a community of entrepreneurs would be at the forefront of fight for net neutrality.

Are you guys sure you understand what net neutrality means? Quote from Wiki (emphasis mine):

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

View attachment 16939

How can they control opinions they don't like on the internet? With net neutrality they can't. Without it, any ISP can block (or throttle) traffic to any website as they see fit.


I'm fed up with all the regulations, SJW, political correctness, etc. being imposed on us daily, but truly believe net neutrality is one of those rare things that should be a right, not a choice.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Denim Chicken]

I am a bit surprised by many replies here. One would expect a community of entrepreneurs would be at the forefront of fight for net neutrality.

Are you guys sure you understand what net neutrality means? Quote from Wiki (emphasis mine):




How can they control opinions they don't like on the internet? With net neutrality they can't. Without it, any ISP can block (or throttle) traffic to any website as they see fit.


I'm fed up with all the regulations, SJW, political correctness, etc. being imposed on us daily, but truly believe net neutrality is one of those rare things that should be a right, not a choice.

The opposing argument I've seen claims that we've been F*cked by Obama and that this is actually a government overstepping their bounds. I def dont agree with this sentiment and I feel like it's team mentality that rules over logic in this case.

The rules of monopolies seem to not apply to these large companies. So sure in an ideal world, let competition rampant and we'll see the companies that F*ck over consumers get railroaded and go out of business. But in the case of Comcast and At&t and ISPs, they run and control the internet service.

They control accessibility to the internet, the speeds we get and who can offer consumers an alternative.

Now with the repeal of NN, they completely control which information gets delivered to who by charging more for it.

The way I see it, it's a complete threat to humankind as the internet has been the #1 important and empowering factor for people, following the movable type so people can read and write without having the church to "translate" literature.

As it relates to entrepreneurs, it can effectively kill new business opportunities or at least make it significantly more expensive since information and content will be more expensive. This really benefits no one other than the cable companies and people who want control over information

 

[policebaton]

I haven't quite gathered enough information on this to form a proper opinion, but when I see oversimplified metaphors on youtube that don't quite add up and everyone on Reddit saying we need to do everything to stop the government, it does make me a bit skeptical that repealing is as bad as it's made out to be (see; Trump bad, Clinton good, etc).

 

[policebaton]

Also I believe in the free market finding its own solution to this if it is such a terrible thing, this opens an opportunity for others to come in. Our internet is totally F*cked in the USA regardless. I live in downtown of a medium sized city... yet Spectrum has a monopoly, there is absolutely not other options, and they just raised my price 65%. We'll see how this unfolds

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PedroG]

Question for those who like "Net Neutrality." Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Question for those who like "Net Neutrality." Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

That's an absurd question with a logical flaw.

That's like asking.. "Did you ever complain about not having 4k before in 2007 when it was all 1080p?"

NN was passed for a reason and just because it was worse before or it didn't exist doesn't mean it isn't useful.

And since NN was passed and heavily pushed for, it seems like it was an issue that needed addressing otherwise it wouldn't have even been brought up.

 

[c4n]

Question for those who like "Net Neutrality." Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

You do realize net neutrality is about the way data (bytes; data packets) is transferred over the wires? It's not about "internet being neutral" (what does this even mean).

There was no need for net neutrality laws before as net neutrality was a fact until ISP wanted to start to prioritize internet traffic.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PedroG]

And since NN was passed and heavily pushed for, it seems like it was an issue that needed addressing otherwise it wouldn't have even been brought up.

It SEEMS like it was an issue? So you automatically assume politicians always have good reasons for trying to control everything? Have you never seen them create a bullshit excuse to pass bullshit laws?

 

[Denim Chicken]

It SEEMS like it was an issue? So you automatically assume politicians always have good reasons for trying to control everything? Have you never seen them create a bullshit excuse to pass bullshit laws?

Why are you using a strawman argument? I never said anything about politicians.

Let's use logic and economics here. How do you have net neutrality and a free market for content distribution on the internet when you only have 4 providers that control the information and give them freedom to price it how they wish?

You would have a point if there was a true free market for ISPs but that's not the case.

Regardless of left or right political bullshit, this is simple economics. And I happen to believe that while big government is usually not the answer..who/what do you turn to other than the government and the legal system when large corporations write the rules?

 

[Denim Chicken]

Net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for the oligopoly with the cable providers. If it was a TRUE free market, the point of neutrality wouldn't be a big discussion.

Let's not forget, for cable companies the advent of the internet and free flow of information AND easy content production destroyed their business.
No one is buying cable anymore and their subscriptions are falling by the wayside. It also means that their distribution and deals with networks are effectively shit. They cannot compete in a true free market environment as you can see.

If we had 300 ISPs that provided with true competition in a free market, it would provide a layer of protection for this type of nonsense but because it's only held by a handful (4) providers, repealing NN effectively creates an artificial curve that only ends up making information and content more expensive for everyone involved.

Let's imagine this scenario. Right now Youtube is free and because it's free, content production is also abundant. The demand will allow for the supply. I am subscribed to things like car channels, tutorials, entrepreneurial podcasts, etc. and because a person has only 24 hours in a day, the content you can consume is limited.
It is taking away from cable and things like A&E, TruTV and all this cable garbage that are packaged within cable networks.

If ISPs had it their way, they might say, charge extra for Youtube. Which will effectively raise prices for Youtube/Google. It will essentially bring back the old network TV model but thru the internet. Companies see that the distribution gatekeepers are ISPs so maybe Google or Hulu or Netflix ends up paying for a multi-year network deal. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?)

THEY WANT TO CONTROL DISTRIBUTION, flat and simple. Instead of information thru TV sets, it is now your computer monitor. Same shit. And thi isn't some conspiracy theory about "they". Cable companies are hurting economically.


You can see the implications of this:
1) Big companies like Google, Hulu, etc. will become the next Fox News, TBS, History Channel because they work out network deals and can afford to pay the ISPs.

2) Free and available content production is no longer viable. One scenario might be you would have to pay a premium subscription to be a youtube content producer and also as a consumer.

Ex: You pay $5/mo for Youtube to TimeWarner and without it you don't get youtube. To be a content producer, you want to be on Youtube because that's where all the traffic is at but they charge you fees and commissions now to cover their expenses.

Now all of the sudden, abundant content and information power is taken away from the people.

The fast travel of information is what allows for progress and innovation and always has been the case.



Prediction:

If NN repeal passes, the cable companies are not stupid. They will do everything to persuade you that it's awesome. You can see it RIGHT NOW.

Tmobile used to have unlimited plans and it used to be you can use whatever bandwidth, for whatever data, at a fast speed.

But then... slowly you started seeing they were converting users to things like Unlimited HD access or Unlimited media package which allows you to have "unlimited" bandwidth for netflix, hulu, spotify, pandora, etc.

Now, Tmobile is giving you free access to Netflix for their plans. People love this shit.
It's a short term benefit to them that masquerades as a discount or a freebie while hiding the fact that their choices and freedom are being funneled off.

ISPs might offer some special about Free Netflix for a year, or your new cable package includes "unlimited bandwidth" for netflix, youtube, and hulu with some bullshit about "premium speeds". They will offer things for free or discounted, or packages and people will think "maybe this isn't so bad".

Then you can either fast forward a few years (or simply look back before the internet came out and see how TV deals were structured and the distribution controlled by network television) and realize, it's really just F*cking you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[PedroG]

You would have a point if there was a true free market for ISPs but that's not the case.

I agree. So why not focus on the source of the problem? Figuring out how to increase competition? I'm afraid letting the government start regulating is going to introduce bigger problems in the future.

What happens when the government decides your website contains "hate speech" and it can now go to Comcast and tell them to block access to it?

 

[Denim Chicken]

I agree. So why not focus on the source of the problem? Figuring out how to increase competition? I'm afraid letting the government start regulating is going to introduce bigger problems in the future.

But this is the problem. Both sides are using government as a way to get what they want.

There's a quote that said the downfall of democracy will be due to special interest groups.

ISPs spent millions pushing for this repeal. They also spend heavily for government influence.

How is free competition possible in that scenario? It's not. So you have other non profits and companies that ask for rules like NN to be put into place.

Bottom line:
There are scenarios when a company gets so big that it starts to completely affect policies and when that happens it's becomes a political fight pushing for legislation, not an economic one

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Exactly. This is my point, just from a different angle. When things are crooked, we fight it, when things are law we accept it. Monopolies can't exist without regulation in their favor. There's never been neutrality. It's been a self-regulating wild west and it's worked well. The argument that legislation can somehow preserve this is misguided. Forget fairness, promote competition. Fighting for smaller ISPs with our wallets is a lot easier than living with an omnipotent white knight with good intentions.

Imagine you're raising a tiger. When it's a baby, it makes a cute cuddly pet. As it grows older it gets more and more aggressive until you have to put it on a chain.

Deep down, the animal has hunting instincts. But while the it was growing up, it was just catching squirrels here and there. Not causing any worry.

So because it was doing that in the past, we should unleash it, because it's not reaching its full potential.

And that potential includes the possibility of you getting mauled.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Xavier X]

Question for those who like "Net Neutrality." Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

If it gets repealed and everything goes back to, AND stays as it was in 2010, no one will complain.

However, the prognosis of a repeal isn't looking that way. That's why people are concerned.

 

[Ecom man]

From what I’ve read on it it basically comes down to the government controlling the internet or businesses controlling the internet. Based on some of the whack jobs who continue to get elected (from both political parties) I feel much better about corporations running things than I do the government. All it takes is a quick glance at China to see what happens when the government controls the internet.

 

[c4n]

From what I’ve read on it it basically comes down to the government controlling the internet or businesses controlling the internet. Based on some of the whack jobs who continue to get elected (from both political parties) I feel much better about corporations running things than I do the government. All it takes is a quick glance at China to see what happens when the government controls the internet.

Actually, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Net neutrality states than every internet traffic on a public communication network is dealt with equally, independent of content, applications, services, devices, source and destination of the communication.

Governments around the world (like China) do control the internet, but that is the opposite of net neutrality and has nothing to do with it.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

Back in 2010, for example, did you use to complain about the internet not being neutral enough? Serious question.

Well there was that time where Comcast held it's user's access to Netflix for ransom unless Netflix paid Comcast for all the traffic the service was using.

Best explanation I could find: The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic

Relevant quotes:

In essence, Comcast sought to meter Netflix traffic requested by Comcast’s broadband subscribers.

Comcast subscribers went from viewing Netflix content at 720p on average HD quality) to viewing content at nearly VHS quality. For many subscribers, the bitrate was so poor that Netflix’s streaming video service became unusable.

Despite purchasing transit on all available routes into Comcast’s network that did not require direct or indirect payment of an access fee to Comcast, the viewing quality of Netflix’s service reached near-VHS quality levels.

Faced with such severe degradation of its streaming video service, Netflix began to negotiate for paid access to connect with Comcast. Netflix and Comcast eventually reached a paid agreement.

The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.” In that ecosystem, “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast.

Comcast was the first large terminating access network to successfully implement a “congest transit pipes” peering strategy to extract direct payment from Netflix, but it is not the only one to do so. Since agreeing to pay Comcast, Netflix also has agreed to pay TWC, AT&T and Verlzon for interconnection. [Redacted section.] Netflix is not the only edge provider to encounter Comcast’s peering strategy. In a 2011 filing with the Commission, Voxel, a hosting company relying on Tata for interconnection with Comcast’s network, noted that “[w]here broadband ISPS typically ensure that links connecting their customers to outside networks are relatively free from congestion, Comcast appears to be taking the opposite approach: maintaining highly-congested links between its network and external ISP.” The letter concludes that Comcast, through its “interconnection relations,” had “deployed an ecosystem in which hosting companies such as Voxel are effectively forced to pay Comcast to serve its broadband subscribers.” In that ecosystem, “it is simply not possible for competing external providers to deliver gaming, or streaming video services to Comcast’s broadband subscribers” without directly or indirectly paying Comcast.

This is the kind of situation that Net Neutrality set out to fix.

Again, to be clear, I'm all for small government and allowing the market to self-correct in situations where self-correcting is possible. But when no "free market" exists to allow competition to self-correct the problem, what is to be done?

For the longest time (and likely even today), Google themselves had issues competing with these folks. Competitors were legally roadblocking access to lay new infrastructure or access the existing one in efforts to prevent competition in the areas Google sought to compete in. A quick search shows that in Kansas, Google was willing to pay up to $1 Billion to implement infrastructure but was being kept out by the utility companies who sought to prevent competition in the area.

So this all begs the question - what's the free market solution where free market competition not only doesn't truly exist but is actively prevented by the existing players?

I'm not trying to be a hippy about this topic or anything, I just don't see the viable free market alternative in situations where massive monopolies / oligopolies control essential services and use their power and influence to artificially hold market positions and screw with their customers?

 

[PedroG]

Again, to be clear, I'm all for small government and allowing the market to self-correct in situations where self-correcting is possible. But when no "free market" exists to allow competition to self-correct the problem, what is to be done?

So this all begs the question - what's the free market solution where free market competition not only doesn't truly exist but is actively prevented by the existing players?

I think we all pretty much agree that if there was a real free market we wouldn't need these regulations.

I found an interesting article on the topic, that talks about how other countries have successfully broken up these monopolies by basically requiring existing companies to provide access to what they call the "last mile" of wires, which is apparently the most expensive to install for new entering competitors.

It gives an example of how this was done in the UK.

The solution is to attack the monopolies head on. The incumbent ISPs obviously have a huge advantage over any putative challengers: they've laid hundreds of thousands of miles of copper, coaxial cable, and fiber to homes and businesses across the country. This last mile network would cost many billions of dollars to replicate, not to mention causing substantial disruption every time a road has to be dug up.

But the solution to this is well-known and practiced in a number of countries around the world—including, at one time, the US: decouple Internet service provision from the last mile network. This is perhaps most abundant in the EU, where it goes by the name Local Loop Unbundling. The wired telecommunications market in Europe was largely dominated by a series of national monopoly phone companies. In order to promote competition, the EU required that these incumbent operators provide third parties access to parts of its infrastructure, in particular the "last mile."

More here: We don’t need net neutrality; we need competition

So it looks like there are examples we can look to, to try to deal with the source of the problem.

 

[funkj25]

I think we all pretty much agree that if there was a real free market we wouldn't need these regulations.

I found an interesting article on the topic, that talks about how other countries have successfully broken up these monopolies by basically requiring existing companies to provide access to what they call the "last mile" of wires, which is apparently the most expensive to install for new entering competitors.

It gives an example of how this was done in the UK.

More here: We don’t need net neutrality; we need competition

So it looks like there are examples we can look to, to try to deal with the source of the problem.

Yes, more competition would eliminate the issue because consumers would be able to vote with their dollars. However, if you're trying to resolve the problem with government breaking up what are essentially mini-monopolies how is that going to be accomplished when that same government is unable to continue to prevent net neutrality from being repealed?

I'm not a lawyer and have no government experience, but to a laymen it appears that maintaining net neutrality would be easier than breaking up company's monopolizing and potentially colluding in markets.

As it stands customers are unable to vote with their dollars when they often only have 1 or 2 choices. I'm in KC, Google Fiber started here. I still only had 2 choices when moving into my apartment and Google wasn't one of them. Becoming an ISP has incredible barriers to entry not to mention the legal tie up that the current ISPs will bring with frivolous lawsuits to try and drain potential new ISP's cash reserves.

It isn't a free market. It shouldn't be treated like one.

The thought that anyone on these boards is for the repeal blows my mind. The internet as an equal playing field against large companies is what gives it such fastlane qualities for small-time operations. Repealing NN negates that situation and entrenches large players with deep pockets.

I had to walk away from this thread from frustration for a little while. As c4n said, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Not government controlling vs corporations controlling. The gist is "data is data" it should all be treated the same.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[JAJT]

I found an interesting article on the topic, that talks about how other countries have successfully broken up these monopolies by basically requiring existing companies to provide access to what they call the "last mile" of wires, which is apparently the most expensive to install for new entering competitors.

This seems like a great solution to increasing competition, although it does introduce the invasiveness of government "stealing" the effort of large corporations (who laid the wire, maintain it, whatever) and doling out access to it for the little guys. It feels like one step removed from nationalizing the lines.

I think the biggest problem, and one I struggle to reconcile myself, is that there is no perfect solution.

Government laws regarding how corporations have to operate = government getting involved where it shouldn't have to.
Corporations self-regulating their monopolies = potential (and history) of abuse of power and anti-competitive behaviors.
Governments introducing the last-mile option = basically stealing the effort of the companies that put that line in place.

In the end everyone just wants this:

The gist is "data is data" it should all be treated the same.

But the question seems to be who's toes gets stepped on to get there?

 

[Deleted52409]

There's a quote that said the downfall of democracy will be due to special interest groups.

Democracy is definitely the reason that many of these special interest groups exist. All they have to do is manipulate the mob in order to get what they want.

 

[Ecom man]

Actually, net neutrality is about no one controlling the internet. Net neutrality states than every internet traffic on a public communication network is dealt with equally, independent of content, applications, services, devices, source and destination of the communication.

Governments around the world (like China) do control the internet, but that is the opposite of net neutrality and has nothing to do with it.

Except the problem is that is not how the law it currently written. Under current laws the government classified the internet as a utility so the government can control and regulate just about every facet of the internet.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Xeon]

It's crazy how such an important issue like NN, and the fate of the internet, can be decided by a panel of 5 unknowns whom the average man (or even most of us here) never even knew existed. The effects of NN could and will trickle down to all countries in the world and will affect even non-US citizens.

Ajit Pai? Who the F is this guy and how did he get so much power?

 

[ruzara5]

putting more resources to bandwidth issues. I'm all for net neutrality, it's a beautiful idea but I'm also all for exchanging value!

I see infrastructure improvements for the future like more fiber and internet technologies that improve bandwidth. Some areas of United States still running on broadband over 70's and earlier based twisted pair type wiring. I do also see freedom of speech needing to be protected. Net neutrality it does have some depth to it.

 

[DannyD]

5 Calls

Enter your zip code and it will tell you what to do, who to call

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Kid]

It came to my mind that repealing Net Neutrality is like stating that some highway would be allowed only to big three (GM/Ford/Chrysler) and not to Tesla or companies alike.

 

[ArcherCarmic]

I'm actually amazed by some of the opinions here on Net Neutrality.
I'm usually impressed by the quality of debate but this is ridiculous.

Net Neutrality ensures an even playing field for all traffic on the internet.
Anyone buying into the "Don't let the government tell us what to do! Keep out of our net" arguments are spreading FUD.
The events you are describing are EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN from the monopolies currently dominating the space.

I get it, some people just need to hate on the government for everything. You are in luck! There's an issue within gov that is at the center of this! It's called Regulatory Capture (Regulatory capture - Wikipedia) - "a government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss to society as a whole"

After net neutrality, there is nothing stopping Comcast (for example) from copying the next big tech startups idea, and launching their own version of it at "increased speed", while slowing speeds to the other or even blocking it outright. Sound crazy? They did it to Netflix in 2014.
There is nothing stopping them from blocking traffic to certain sites or services as they see fit. Torrent Traffic? Haha say goodbye to that technology. Tor traffic and/or VPN? Not a chance. Anyone here a fan of Netflix? I wonder what the next great video startup would be? It will never happen again because it would be crushed before they got a chance.
All of those new groundbreaking technologies like crypto? If Verizon decided they wanted to launch their own VCOIN currency and exchange, they could block every single other exchange for their users and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it.

Seriously people wake up.