Net Neutrality

[Epaminondas]

Yeah, I didn't want to post it because I didn't want to come across as gloating. However, I'd offer two things to you, one of which I don't like at all:

 

1. You're very likely to get your way on Net Neutrality in the 'near' future. Say within the next two or three presidential election cycles. The left is great at selling it and the right is idiotic in how they fight it.

 

2. It might not be the end of the world. Think of this time that Net Neutrality has been in place and, over the next few years, think about how your internet changes. I'm neither talking petty small nuisances that you wouldn't have noticed if not for this debate nor am I talking about things that you've heard or read on the internet. You, personally, do you see a difference?

 

All that said, since I think my side lost this battle for the next generation and I won't be around to fight it in the one after, I can tell you that the best argument against number 2 is that changes that occur on such a scale as the internet won't necessarily be readily apparent to the end consumer, even if they do have a detrimental impact. Of course, I'd use the same argument for bureaucracies, but I know most folks want ammunition against businesses. So, theoretically, the big differences at the top of the chain might still be unhealthy later on down the chain in ways that individuals don't notice immediately but nonetheless result in less access, higher prices (especially occurring slowly over time), and restriction of competing ideas. I don't believe it, but what the hell, it's hard to argue things like that don't happen.

[Elerond]

https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/

 

 

I would not start gloating death of net neutrality yet. I would predict that this vote will be heavy blow against FCC authority (as their decision will be tested in courts and congress needs to decide what they will do to demands from their constituents) and will inspire actual laws to be placed in in order to protect interest of people who elect people to govern them. Several states (like for example California and Washington) are already starting to introduce their own net neutrality laws. Which means that future will be much more regulated and with much more complex set of rules. 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Elerond

[Blarghagh]

Whelp, sucks for you guys. Hope you don't follow Portugal and NZ.

 

[Bartimaeus]

Huh, I think I posted the link to that exact site like a week ago.

 

here's a fun thing to look at: portuguese mobile phone plans without net neutrality today.

Yep.

[Zoraptor]

Whelp, sucks for you guys. Hope you don't follow Portugal and NZ.

 

 

Eh, we're nothing like Portugal (or the US). We don't have net neutrality but it doesn't matter because there's proper competition and the bulk of the network infrastructure is decoupled from ISP ownership* and can be used by any ISP. If you don't like your current ISP's policies you can swap near instantly, so ISPs tend to compete on price and added value neither of which is compatible with Portugese style price gouging. With a dozen or so ISPs if someone tried charging you to access netflix or whatever you'd just go to a competitor. I'm on rural broadband (so mobile data, basically, not even fibre or ADSL) and the competition with only 3 options was enough to get me free access to a netflix equivalent, upgrade to 4g and a quadrupling of cap within a year- plus a permanent $10 discount on the list price.

 

Internet is relatively expensive here, but that's a 'genuine' cost of being in a country the physical size of the British Isles with ~7% of its population, difficult geography for infrastructure even without the low pop density and isolated from the rest of the world by a few thousand km of ocean as well. We're always going to have relatively expensive internet.

 

*Wasn't always that way, indeed it used to be that Telecom favoured its own ISP significantly. Now they're split though, 'Chorus' owns the infrastructure and 'Spark' is the service company. We don't talk about those dark days though, before the split, when there was The Empire. Truly dreadful service at a high cost with horrible anti competitive tactics like undercutting Clear's cable service on a street by street basis as it was rolled out.

[ShadySands]

I have no options besides Comcast for high speed internet where I live :/

 

I guess I should start my own ISP

[injurai]

I have no options besides Comcast for high speed internet where I live :/

 

I guess I should start my own ISP

 

If all you have is Comcast, then you are lost in a desert my friend.

[Gfted1]

Comcast was already robbing me blind with net neutrality, I cant imagine whats coming for me...

[Bartimaeus]

I have no options besides Comcast for high speed internet where I live :/

 

I guess I should start my own ISP

Zoraptor kind of already pointed out why you can't: too much infrastructure is owned by our ISPs, which makes it virtually impossible for new companies to enter already controlled markets as the cost to enter the market is so incredibly high, unlike in New Zealand. Also as Zoraptor more or less said previously, a little regulation and a lot of competition is usually pretty good, no competition and a lot of regulation is worse, but no regulation and no competition is horrible.

 

Naturally, the FCC also wants to make municipal internet illegal, which is probably the only thing that has a chance at creating any competition for these companies on a national scale.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[ShadySands]

That's the joke

 

I don't have the resources to even attempt to compete.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ShadySands

[injurai]

[Epaminondas]

Comcast was already robbing me blind with net neutrality, I cant imagine whats coming for me...

Depends, how much of a discount did you receive after NN went into effect in 2015?

[Gfted1]

Honesty, I don't know, my wife takes care of the finances. But I am privy to her venting, specifically about Comcast and our cellular bill and both are exorbitant.

[Malcador]

 

Comcast was already robbing me blind with net neutrality, I cant imagine whats coming for me...

Depends, how much of a discount did you receive after NN went into effect in 2015?

Not sure that depends on the discount.

[Elerond]

 

Depends, how much of a discount did you receive after NN went into effect in 2015?

 

 

Net Neutrality was in effect before 2015. FCC was forced 2015 for various reasons make it clearer because ISP's constantly fought against it.

 

One of biggest reasons was Comcast decision to start throttle Netflix down until they agreed to pay Comcast millions of dollars extra for service that they had already paid.  

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

[ShadySands]

I'm guessing that most of Gfted1's bill is the TV portion but I still don't think that's a very good argument

 

ISPs mostly went after non-affiliated internet services first, see Comcast vs BitTorrent or Comcast vs Netflix. The discussions about NN have been going on for years before the 2015 rules and some of it was reactive to what companies like Comcast were doing but some of it was to also preempt the worst of the anti-consumer practices like monetizing the net like they do with cable TV

 

Now that the rules are gone I don't expect all the worst case scenarios to immediately, if ever, play out. I expect them to once again go after non-affiliated internet services (Netflix, Steam, Youtube, etc) to work out deals directly with them. Maybe some will pass that extra cost onto the consumer and maybe some won't. After that I'd expect promotion of their affiliated services (Hulu, HBO, etc) with discounts, faster speeds, zero rating, and whatever else. Tiered services and web packages could come in later but I wouldn't expect them right away.

 

Edit: Ninja'd by Elerond

Edited December 14, 2017 by ShadySands

[213374U]

https://www.avclub.com/the-fccs-ajit-pai-now-openly-mocking-net-neutrality-pro-1821278546

 

So, what was that about a stabbable face again?

[injurai]

https://www.avclub.com/the-fccs-ajit-pai-now-openly-mocking-net-neutrality-pro-1821278546

 

So, what was that about a stabbable face again?

 

[Malcador]

https://www.avclub.com/the-fccs-ajit-pai-now-openly-mocking-net-neutrality-pro-1821278546

 

So, what was that about a stabbable face again?

Upgradeable to sand blastable face

[Epaminondas]

EDIT: tl;dr: Cheese off, ya bunch of rat bastards!

 

That's the funny thing about this place that I've noticed. Someone says something in one place and you hear it somewhere else almost immediately. I've always said that there would be a consequence higher up on the food chain. That might even have serious consequences at the bottom. However, it might not. People are taking for granted that worst case scenarios are going to play out and anyone who suggests otherwise can expect some ridicule or *shudders* internet schooling with several pages of internet proof. I get that the argument is that the move to rescind NN went farther than a return to prior to 2015, but we're not exactly sure where all this will end up. No one is sure how any of this will pan out and the only proponent who even acknowledges that fact that I've read here is ShadySands. The article that made a passing reference to 500 year old medieval bridges was mostly balloon juice but, like the devil whispering in your ear, it can be hard to untangle hard truths from half truths mixed with conjecture and frantic hand wringing. Look, I'm all ready to leave the field. I doubt any of this matters. What will matter is how this will all pan out. Maybe I'm just an unwitting shill who bought into Pai's evil machinations. (I'll be surprised if someone snips out that one sentence and uses it oh so cleverly in a response.) However, assuming I'm a reasonably educated person with approximately average intelligence and an interest in the issue, let's assume I'm trying to make principled arguments on behalf of my position. So, I'll say this and then step back to read any responses word for word.

 

1. I'm worried about how this will all play out. Using my own argument, NN didn't have a huge impact on me immediately, and so I was also worried about speculative problems with the NN plan. Just a nod to the other side.

 

2. Everything about this has been speculative on the end user level. The higher level will undoubtedly change, but it's really hard to see those effects without seeing consumer response. That will tell the tale.

 

3. My internet has been one of the most stable 'utilities' for years. The pricing has been good, the speeds have been good, and the availability has been good. It would be easy for me to join the 'sky is falling' crowd, and certainly the vast majority of my real life friends are against me, but I don't see the incentive of the FCC to create the sorts of problems for the end user that people propose here. If it really ended up as bad as people contend, then we would actually get legislative action. That would be the best case scenario for the NN proponents anyway. That's a leftist dream. Create a problem so bad you have an excuse to use the government hammer and then it doesn't matter which administration comes to power.

 

4. If I'm around, even as a ghost, long enough to see this stuff go down the crapper, I'll own it. With the powers arrayed in favor of NN, I won't exactly take responsibility for rescinding it. Clearly, I was in a small minority, but nevertheless I will admit the mistake.

 

5. This is the big one, people want it. It's has pretty broad support among the population and things that enough of the public wants long enough tend to be accommodated one way or the other.

 

Net Neutrality has been a big issue for me since I first heard of it over a decade ago, otherwise I probably wouldn't even be in here duking it out in a one sided battle where I get the feeling I might be in the minority. At least a little. With that said, no hard feelings for any scorn thrown my way. If you're mean to me, I'll cry on the inside but I'd still buy you a beer. I might smack you on the head with the bottle when you were done drinking it, but we'd still have a beer together.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Epaminondas

[Bartimaeus]

[...]I'm just an unwitting shill who bought into Pai's evil machinations

checkmate, monopolists

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

https://www.avclub.com/the-fccs-ajit-pai-now-openly-mocking-net-neutrality-pro-1821278546

 

So, what was that about a stabbable face again?

I suspect this is provocation is a ploy to drum up sympathy after someone whups his ass.

[HoonDing]

is this a win for Trump?

[Valsuelm]

 

I have no options besides Comcast for high speed internet where I live :/

 

I guess I should start my own ISP

Zoraptor kind of already pointed out why you can't: too much infrastructure is owned by our ISPs, which makes it virtually impossible for new companies to enter already controlled markets as the cost to enter the market is so incredibly high, unlike in New Zealand. Also as Zoraptor more or less said previously, a little regulation and a lot of competition is usually pretty good, no competition and a lot of regulation is worse, but no regulation and no competition is horrible.

 

Naturally, the FCC also wants to make municipal internet illegal, which is probably the only thing that has a chance at creating any competition for these companies on a national scale.

 

 

While the bolded and underlined would not surprise me at all, I have not seen this anywhere. Can you please share a reference?

[Bartimaeus]

I'm looking through my history, but did not find anything. Found mentions of the FCC wanting to make it so states couldn't come up with their own net neutrality laws, but not much about municipal internet. Either something that was just thrown out there as an idea, fake news, or I'm misremembering, I guess. There goes my career in journalism... Well, at least in quarter-decent publications, anyways.