Net Neutrality

[Big Hawk D-Port]

with all of the mindless political fighting on HROT how is it that the impending reversal of the Net Neutrality rules has gotten such little discussion here?

I really don’t see the argument against Net Neutrality...maybe someone can enlighten me? Because it seems to me that Comcast ATT and the rest are probably tired of Netflix stealing their customers over the very cabling infrastructure that they built and maintain, so once these rules get lifted you will be paying your ISP just for the right to get to Netflix or YouTube TV.

But I am willing to be wrong. What’s the argument in favor of lifting the Net Neutrality rules?

 

[Moral]

There was a recent thread about. The majority of people here support NN.

 

[HIWB]

https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/threads/net-neutrality.213069/

 

[Joes Place]

...maybe someone can enlighten me? Because it seems to me that Comcast ATT and the rest are probably tired of Netflix stealing their customers over the very cabling infrastructure that they built and maintain

LOLWUT?
When did Netflix become an ISP?

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

LOLWUT?
When did Netflix become an ISP?

Stealing their cable tv customers.

 

[gusto79]

with all of the mindless political fighting on HROT how is it that the impending reversal of the Net Neutrality rules has gotten such little discussion here?

I really don’t see the argument against Net Neutrality...maybe someone can enlighten me? Because it seems to me that Comcast ATT and the rest are probably tired of Netflix stealing their customers over the very cabling infrastructure that they built and maintain, so once these rules get lifted you will be paying your ISP just for the right to get to Netflix or YouTube TV.

But I am willing to be wrong. What’s the argument in favor of lifting the Net Neutrality rules?

Seems like there are only about two people anti-net neutrality here. Prime and Soup. Soup is just a contrarian so he is against it because everyone else is for it. He doesn't really understand the reasoning. He'll just claim net neutrality is a regulation and harms smaller ISPs but he can't seem to articulate why.

Prime appears to think ISPs should be able to discriminate data based on source because the ISPs own the infrastructure. It's odd because most ISPs claim they won't, but Primes argument is they should.

 

[hawkifann]

There's a good discussion here: https://overcast.fm/+Bihk9I3Lk

 

[Joes Place]

What’s the argument in favor of lifting the Net Neutrality rules?

Large ISPs who also have rights to various media content will be able to charge you more, so that you can get specific content streamed at internet speeds you'd otherwise already be paying for.

E.g.: Today you pay $50/month for 20 Mbps - fast enough access to stream from anything - Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

Eliminate NN, and now your ISP who partners with Amazon will let you stream Amazon on your 20 Mbps, but if you want Netflix or Hulu to stream at anything >1 Mbps, that'll cost you an extra $10 a month. Oh, you want to stream NFL, too? Well, in addition to paying NFL Network for the access, your ISP will tack on another $5 a month to stream that at anything faster than 1 Mpbs.

You'll still get that content; it will buffer, be choppy, and most likely in SD, not HD, unless you pay add-on fees.

That's what it will legally enable them to do.

TODAY, they CANNOT do that, because when you PAY for 20 Mbps speeds, they are required to provide those speeds you are paying for REGARDLESS of what you stream. Pron or otherwise.

 

[Joes Place]

Stealing their cable tv customers.

Protip: that's not what an ISP does.....

 

[Joes Place]

Prime appears to think ISPs should be able to discriminate data based on source because the ISPs own the infrastructure.

So? If you're paying for 20 Mbps, they should have the infrastructure to provide 20 Mbps, or it's fraud.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Protip: that's not what an ISP does.....

ISPs frequently also provide cable tv service and that part of their business is losing customers like crazy. I know you understand this. Why are you being obtuse, friend?

 

[millah_22]

Protip: that's not what an ISP does.....

Then why is Comcast and Centurylink always trying to push cable bundles on me? People are cutting the cable for Netflix and other streaming sites. I can see why ISP's, who also sell cable, would not like that.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Large ISPs who also have rights to various media content will be able to charge you more, so that you can get specific content streamed at internet speeds you'd otherwise already be paying for.

E.g.: Today you pay $50/month for 20 Mbps - fast enough access to stream from anything - Hulu, Amazon, Netflix, etc.

Eliminate NN, and now your ISP who partners with Amazon will let you stream Amazon on your 20 Mbps, but if you want Netflix or Hulu to stream at anything >1 Mbps, that'll cost you an extra $10 a month. Oh, you want to stream NFL, too? Well, in addition to paying NFL Network for the access, your ISP will tack on another $5 a month to stream that at anything faster than 1 Mpbs.

You'll still get that content; it will buffer, be choppy, and most likely in SD, not HD, unless you pay add-on fees.

That's what it will legally enable them to do.

TODAY, they CANNOT do that, because when you PAY for 20 Mbps speeds, they are required to provide those speeds you are paying for REGARDLESS of what you stream. Pron or otherwise.

Ok. So why isn’t everyone getting super pissed about NN getting lifted is my question?

 

[MartinLutherNole]

There was a recent thread about. The majority of people here support NN.

 

[millah_22]

Ok. So why isn’t everyone getting super pissed about NN getting lifted is my question?

Most people don't know what net neutrality is.

If they do know what net neutrality is:
1. they do care
2. they are against it bc fox news told them to be against it
3. they don't care, because they don't think it will effect them
4. they don't care because it's confusing to them and it's too much effort to stop watching TruTV to care.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Most people don't know what net neutrality is.

If they do know what net neutrality is:
1. they do care
2. they are against it bc fox news told them to be against it
3. they don't care, because they don't think it will effect them
4. they don't care because it's confusing to them and it's too much effort to stop watching TruTV to care.

Right. We have 50 threads a day about the Mueller investigation, which is probably going to be a bigger let down than the Pinstripe Bowl. But here they are threatening internet pron right in front of our faces and nobody cares?

 

[Joes Place]

ISPs frequently also provide cable tv service and that part of their business is losing customers like crazy. I know you understand this. Why are you being obtuse, friend?

So, they should legally be able to "throttle" your Netflix speeds, if you opt to NOT pay $100/month for their cable bundles?

Because that's precisely a business model that can be legal by eliminating NN.

NN has been the de-facto standard for the internet for the entirety of its existence. Is there some aspect of that "holding the internet back"?

 

[Joes Place]

Ok. So why isn’t everyone getting super pissed about NN getting lifted is my question?

They are.

And Congress has the full authority to pass legislation and make a definitive statute on it; apparently, not too many Congressmen want to lose out on the money-trains from AT&T/Time-Warner/Etc, etc etc.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

So, they should legally be able to "throttle" your Netflix speeds, if you opt to NOT pay $100/month for their cable bundles?

Because that's precisely a business model that can be legal by eliminating NN.

NN has been the de-facto standard for the internet for the entirety of its existence. Is there some aspect of that "holding the internet back"?

I think you misunderstood me. I’m not in favor of lifting NN. I’m wondering who outside of Comcast HQ thinks this is a good idea.

 

[Joes Place]

I think you misunderstood me. I’m not in favor of lifting NN. I’m wondering who outside of Comcast HQ thinks this is a good idea.

People who believe the propaganda from the big companies.
Pay special attention to the present appointee who is CHANGING the rules now, and that he was a corporate lawyer for Verizon (I believe) before this post. If I'm an ISP exec, I'd LOVE to have the ability to "throttle" people's internet speeds over specific streaming websites, so I could add in "bundles" on top of the existing packages and get them to pay for it.

 

[longliveCS40]

Here's an easy, real-world example of why net-neutrality is a good thing.

On the east coast, Verizon has the FiOS service which is high speed internet and bundled TV services over their network. Right now, you could have Verizon as your ISP but use Netflix or DirecTV Now or Hulu as your TV provider.

Revoke NN and all of a sudden, Verizon can say "OK, you can either use our FiOS television service and pay us $30 a month or use something else like Netflix and we'll charge you $50 a month for the data. Your choice."

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

This SHOULD be that most unique issue where Ds and Rs can all agree. Sadly probably not.

 

[MartinLutherNole]

 

[naturalmwa]

This SHOULD be that most unique issue where Ds and Rs can all agree. Sadly probably not.

Rs are reflexively against government regulations supported by Ds and signed by Obama.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Here's an easy, real-world example of why net-neutrality is a good thing.

On the east coast, Verizon has the FiOS service which is high speed internet and bundled TV services over their network. Right now, you could have Verizon as your ISP but use Netflix or DirecTV Now or Hulu as your TV provider.

Revoke NN and all of a sudden, Verizon can say "OK, you can either use our FiOS television service and pay us $30 a month or use something else like Netflix and we'll charge you $50 a month for the data. Your choice."

First, I fully support NN, but the argument against your scenario is that the “free market” would regulate it instead of government. I don’t believe it would, appropriately, but that is always the counter-argument.

Also, those obvious examples aren’t the concern, IMO, because that would be up front and allow you to choose. I think it will be far more underhanded, like limiting specific video game bandwidth, throttling Netflix, or partnering with Netflix then throttling the competition. They won’t tell you about it, won’t give you options, they believe they will get that $30 once they put out those other businesses, not just a stick-up game.

 

[longliveCS40]

My point is that they don't have to partner with anyone. They're the ISP and content provider. They have a competitive advantage if you let them charge different rates for different content.

They charge a lot for others content and none for their own...

 

[Joes Place]

First, I fully support NN, but the argument against your scenario is that the “free market” would regulate it instead of government. I don’t believe it would, appropriately, but that is always the counter-argument.

Also, those obvious examples aren’t the concern, IMO, because that would be up front and allow you to choose. I think it will be far more underhanded, like limiting specific video game bandwidth, throttling Netflix, or partnering with Netflix then throttling the competition. They won’t tell you about it, won’t give you options, they believe they will get that $30 once they put out those other businesses, not just a stick-up game.

The problem is, that many ISPs hold virtual monopolies on services in many areas.

If the FCC wants to gut NN, but then require 3 independent high-speed internet options per address for true 'competition', fine, but that's not where we are at this point.

Out here, I can get Comcast (cable) or Centurylink. Comcast comes with cable TV (no other option). Centurylink is just DSL. There's one other DSL option, but it's a smaller player; all the rest do not offer 5 Mbps or higher service.

So, again, if I'm paying for 20 Mbps, why shouldn't I GET that, irrespective of the source? The ANSWER is that services like Amazon Firestick, PS4, Sling, etc are eating the lunch of the cable providers. And they are seeing the back-door way to get market share back is to "partner" with HS internet ISPs, then 'throttle' your service if you're using one of those net-based cable options, and charge you on the ISP-end.

If the ISPs as they are presently organized cannot deliver 10 Mbps or 20 Mbps, they should NOT be allowed to advertise it. It's FRAUD.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

ISPs frequently also provide cable tv service and that part of their business is losing customers like crazy. I know you understand this. Why are you being obtuse, friend?

Correct me if I'm wrong but arn't some of these companies or their subsidiaries also starting up their own streaming services??

So? If you're paying for 20 Mbps, they should have the infrastructure to provide 20 Mbps, or it's fraud.

I wonder if there is a possible law suit here which might be able to institute de-facto net neutrality.

As a paying customer you are promising me the internet at a certain speed. That does not have any limitations on it.

You want to reneg on that promise then you need to put out a different contract that says so.

The good news is that I think the market may force net neutrality even if our government isn't going to step up and do the job. When people realize their provider isn't going to let them get netflix they might just look for a new provider who promises neutrality.

 

[Joes Place]

What is really needed on this issue is a STANDARD (call it a "regulation" if you want, but it's really a standard) for ISPs and internet access.

And Congress has the ability to adopt such a standard as a requirement for broadband.

A standard would require ISPs to provide a GUARANTEE of minimum bandwidth capacity, along with their advertised levels. So, if you're buying a 20 Mbps package - there needs to be a minimum standard for what's the SLOWEST that ISP can throttle you to (or must have the infrastructure to provide).

If that standard is 50% of the max, then you're guaranteed 10 Mbps, any time, any site on a 20 Mbps plan. If that's 5%, then you could be down to 1 Mbps, which means you'd need to purchase a 100 Mbps package to guarantee HD access to anything.

That standard SHOULD BE on the order of 50% of your rated speed, but whatever is set, that should be what consumer protection laws are based around. If your ISP doesn't routinely deliver your 50% advertised speed, then you have the FTC and other agencies which can fine them, or they can be required to refund 1 month or more of service (and I've had Centurylink refund 2 months of service to me by complaining and documenting internet problems JUST THIS YEAR - that's because they know when you document it, and can send that info to the Consumer Protection offices, they can get in a lot of regulatory trouble - won't be the case if NN goes away)

Do this, and the whole 'net neutrality' issue pretty much goes away. And Congress can do it IF we tell them to get it done or vote them out.

 

[Joes Place]

Correct me if I'm wrong but arn't some of these companies or their subsidiaries also starting up their own streaming services??



I wonder if there is a possible law suit here which might be able to institute de-facto net neutrality.

As a paying customer you are promising me the internet at a certain speed. That does not have any limitations on it.

You want to reneg on that promise then you need to put out a different contract that says so.

The good news is that I think the market may force net neutrality even if our government isn't going to step up and do the job. When people realize their provider isn't going to let them get netflix they might just look for a new provider who promises neutrality.

Again...market forces CANNOT work absent adequate competition; and in most areas,there is not independent competition - consumers have one or two options for broadband.

 

[longliveCS40]

Again...market forces CANNOT work absent adequate competition; and in most areas,there is not independent competition - consumers have one or two options for broadband.

THIS. This is the crux of the issue. The market won't "sort itself out" as there is a monopoly in a lot of areas. Either there's a sole high speed option or any high speed internet options are offered by a company that also does television (streaming or hardwired).

Without Net Neutrality, these companies can say "Use our streaming TV service or pay double the cost for your data with a different one. Your choice."

What is your recourse if they do that? Go to Company B who will then say "Use OUR streaming TV service or pay double the cost for your data with a different one."

See the issue with removing Net Neutrality? And that's just one of the issues with it. Censoring content is another big issue that revoking net neutrality opens up.

 

[hawkifann]

Rs are reflexively against government regulations supported by Ds and signed by Obama.

While I generally understand this approach, this one is crazy. I've seen plenty of people who support removing NN say that this is a fed over-reach. It's regulating interstate commerce, which is literally as far as one can get from federal overreach as possible.