Net Neutrality for Dummies?

[herbu]

Can somebody explain in plain English what this is?
Is it good or bad?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

 

[Rickster71]

This should help a bit:
http://www.businessinsider.com/net-neutralityfor-dummies-and-how-it-effects-you-2014-1

And this: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-net-neutrality.html

 

[bompus]

It has pros and cons, like everything. I'd like to be able to use my internet connection for whatever I want without being metered or bandwidth capped based on what I am uploading or downloading. On the other hand, I don't want the government telling ANY private company how much they can charge for any product or service.

 

[Hobbit]

It has pros and cons, like everything. I'd like to be able to use my internet connection for whatever I want without being metered or bandwidth capped based on what I am uploading or downloading. On the other hand, I don't want the government telling ANY private company how much they can charge for any product or service.

Herein lies the paradox. I should be able to download and upload without being capped because that's what I'm paying for - no matter who I'm downloading from. Which means I should be able to run Netflix/Amazon/Hulu 24/7. OTOH, if you're the provider, you should be able to charge more to someone who's using a ton of bandwidth, like Netflix/Amazon/Hulu, because that means more infrastructure to support it. Tough call.

What bothers me as much as this is that most (if not all) of the US is run by a duopoly. Which means they're better working together to keep rates and profits up than really competing. Probably why the US is down around 30 on the list of countries download speeds. There's the cable provider and the DSL provider and the other local providers just piggyback onto them. I've been with both and honestly they're both provide horrible customer service. Again, there's no incentive to keep you a happy customer!

On top of this, they both offer "speeds up to." What is this nonsense? Would you buy a car based on a mileage it could get up to? Going down this hill with a tail wind..... It wouldn't be a lie! Yet car companies have lost cases for not meeting what they advertise. I should be told what my minimum upload/download speeds are and be charged appropriately. If that means different rates for different neighborhoods so be it. I've never seen a speed above 57Mbps, average is around 35Mbps even though I'm paying for speeds up 105Mbps! Yes, I'm above the lower tier, but I'm only getting 50% of what they advertise. That is highway robbery.

IMO, if they don't clean up all this nonsense I'm for the government stepping in. Splitting Ma Bell up was a good thing... at least until we coalesce back to 2-3 providers.

 

[lsiberian]

Background: With the early rise of Netflix and Hulu you were traveling really far down the chain to get your content causing a bottleneck on their internet as a whole. So they offered Netflix and Hulu the opportunity to mirror their content on a much closer server which benefited both Netflix and the ISP by giving Netflix better streaming quality while reducing ISP load.

Fast forward: Now there is concern that this practice is being abused by ISPs. What started out as a mutual win becomes a bidding war if an ISP decides to bid Amazon Instant Video and Netflix against each other. Another concern is that ISPs might throttle content as well. Finally it's becoming clear that the Internet is really public utility and no longer just a private service. These days the Internet is as important to us as roads. The ISPs claim this switch comes with a tax, but I'm not buying the claim. It reads like a fear tactic.

On the political front Republicans are heavily funded by ATT so they are naturally against anything that goes against the interest of ATT. Most of us pretty much hate the phone and internet companies that's the main reason why it's such a popular idea. FWIW the government actually paid for the lines we are all using with grants and tax breaks. If the phone companies had good customer service and regularly improved your service no one would be arguing for Net Neutrality. Since they refuse to upgrade they are getting what they deserve. Thankfully my provider isn't like that and regularly upgrades us. ATT also is fiercely opposing Google Fiber in Austin. I still have my phone through them, but I'm definitely not a fan of the company as a whole.

 

[herbu]

Thanks, guys. There's one thing that bothers me a little. Say I own a restaurant. The govt tells me I have to charge the same thing to everybody, whether they get a small salad or prime rib. It means I'll be forced to charge the salad guy more than he costs in order to pay for the prime rib guy.

Now I imagine I own an ISP. I have Netflix streaming video and taking up half my bandwidth. Shouldn't I be able to charge Netflix or their customers more than I charge the guy who just checks his email once a week?

It seems reasonable there should be some kind of pay-for-play scheme. The more you use it, the more you pay. Right?

 

[Hobbit]

Thanks, guys. There's one thing that bothers me a little. Say I own a restaurant. The govt tells me I have to charge the same thing to everybody, whether they get a small salad or prime rib. It means I'll be forced to charge the salad guy more than he costs in order to pay for the prime rib guy.

Now I imagine I own an ISP. I have Netflix streaming video and taking up half my bandwidth. Shouldn't I be able to charge Netflix or their customers more than I charge the guy who just checks his email once a week?

It seems reasonable there should be some kind of pay-for-play scheme. The more you use it, the more you pay. Right?

Not sure about your apples and oranges (prime rib to salad) analogy, here's a counter analogy. Suppose there are two gas stations in town. It would make more sense for the owners to work together and keep gas prices high and therefore profits high. As a kid working in a gas station I saw this happen between the station I was working in and the station across the street. At first they competed, and then they talked..... A monopoly (or studies have shown once there are 3 or less service providers) is capitalism worst nightmare.

The catch 22 is if you're thy guy checking your email, you may never get the speed you're paying for because the ISP is throttling your mail provider or any other internet content you use. How do you get what you're paying for? On a much broader sense, should the ISP then be allowed to control what content you're allowed to see?

 

[Rickster71]

On the political front Republicans are heavily funded by ATT so they are naturally against anything that goes against the interest of ATT. Most of us pretty much hate the phone and internet companies that's the main reason why it's such a popular idea. FWIW the government actually paid for the lines we are all using with grants and tax breaks. If the phone companies had good customer service and regularly improved your service no one would be arguing for Net Neutrality. Since they refuse to upgrade they are getting what they deserve. Thankfully my provider isn't like that and regularly upgrades us. ATT also is fiercely opposing Google Fiber in Austin. I still have my phone through them, but I'm definitely not a fan of the company as a whole.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if politicians didn't accept "Pay for Play" money from every special interest group.
The government offered grants and tax breaks because they took money from the groups that got the breaks.
The problem is really with all the groups that bribe and all the politicians that accept the money.
List of Top Contributors is a real eye opener:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
AT&T only donates $10 million more to Republicans($35,115,427) than they do to Democrats($25,081,523). Seems like everyone has their hands in the trough

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

While AT&T is a big lobbying player, they aren't the biggest. Second largest DC lobby (after defense contractor Northman Grumman) is Comcast.
Analogie of steak and salad is totally off.
Imagine you are running a restaurant and you are free to choose from any vendor you like and they all could make food delivery equally fast.
Then company which is the owner of ALL the roads tells your vendors that from now on they better pay up big bucks or else get stuck in huge traffic. As a result only large vendors could make the payment demands and continue to make quick deliveries, while the smaller guys can't afford to pay the ransom (tolls) and produce might get spoiled on the way since he was stuck in traffic.

 

[Rickster71]

While AT&T is a big lobbying player, they aren't the biggest. Second largest DC lobby (after defense contractor Northman Grumman) is Comcast.
Analogie of steak and salad is totally off.
Imagine you are running a restaurant and you are free to choose from any vendor you like and they all could make food delivery equally fast.
Then company which owner of all the roads tells your vendors that from now on they better pay up or get stuck in huge traffic. As result only large vendors could continue to make quick deliveries, while the smaller guy produce might get spoiled on the way since he was stuck in traffic.

You might want to check the list I linked to in my post.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Northrop Grumman is 66th on the list.
Most of the top contributors are unions.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

You might want to check the list I linked to in my post.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Northrop Grumman is 66th on the list.
Most of the top contributors are unions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-03-06/time-warner-cable-deal-sets-comcast-lobbying-machine-in-motion

but then again - it's almost a year old...

 

[Rickster71]

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-03-06/time-warner-cable-deal-sets-comcast-lobbying-machine-in-motion

but then again - it's almost a year old...

Oh I see the difference.
I posted the top contributions.
Your list was what the lobbying groups spend in general.
Here's another one, if interested:
Here's a list of the top interest groups contributing to members of the 111th Congress during the 2013-2014 election cycle. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php

 

[Swerd]

Since various Supreme Court's rulings, such as Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, and others, political contributions may be unlimited and hidden from the public. This includes direct contributions to parties and individual campaign funds, as well as indirect contributions via political action committees.

As a result, any list claiming to reveal the amount and source of political contributions, is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Swerd]

The FCC approves strong net neutrality rules

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/26/the-fcc-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/?hpid=z1

 

[Steve81]

Thanks, guys. There's one thing that bothers me a little. Say I own a restaurant. The govt tells me I have to charge the same thing to everybody, whether they get a small salad or prime rib. It means I'll be forced to charge the salad guy more than he costs in order to pay for the prime rib guy.

Now I imagine I own an ISP. I have Netflix streaming video and taking up half my bandwidth. Shouldn't I be able to charge Netflix or their customers more than I charge the guy who just checks his email once a week?

It seems reasonable there should be some kind of pay-for-play scheme. The more you use it, the more you pay. Right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but being able to charge the end consumer more for greater bandwidth / a higher data cap (i.e. a data plan for a phone) isn't at odds with net neutrality. It's a matter of keeping our internet connections an unbiased dumb pipe, versus the potential for a walled garden for whoever happens to grease the wheels of your local ISP.

 

[Rickster71]

The FCC approves strong net neutrality rules

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/26/the-fcc-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/?hpid=z1

Oh yes...
Because the best ay to make the internet more free is to have the government take it over.
I guess it's the best way to ensure NSA gets all their bandwidth.

 

[Swerd]

Of course, as the internet exists today with 2 dominant companies working as a duopoly, the free market won't make the internet more free. The FCC ruling hardly creates a govt. "takeover", it marks out the internet as a public utility much the same as radio/TV air waves or telephone networks.

The NSA already had it's bandwidth many years ago .

 

[shadyJ]

Thanks, guys. There's one thing that bothers me a little. Say I own a restaurant. The govt tells me I have to charge the same thing to everybody, whether they get a small salad or prime rib. It means I'll be forced to charge the salad guy more than he costs in order to pay for the prime rib guy.

Now I imagine I own an ISP. I have Netflix streaming video and taking up half my bandwidth. Shouldn't I be able to charge Netflix or their customers more than I charge the guy who just checks his email once a week?

It seems reasonable there should be some kind of pay-for-play scheme. The more you use it, the more you pay. Right?

No. Just no. I need an aspirin after reading this one.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]