Title II is Not the Net Neutrality You’re Looking For

[highfigh]

I can only retell my anecdote which I have related in this forum before. Before net neutrality, I was not able to watch Netflix in HD resolutions during primetime hours. I could only get HD resolution late at night. Right after net neutrality passed, somehow magically I was able to watch Netflix at high resolutions during the daytime with no problem. There are many examples that prove that prove that major ISPs were throttling Netflix and other streaming services, just do a google search.

In this day and age, internet services are so interwoven with the fabric of our lives that it should be considered a utility. Obama did what he could to set this right. You can't criticize Obama for not doing enough, but you can criticize the republican congress for blocking legislation towards that effect and for being in the pockets of telecommunications companies. But more then a republican congress problem, it is the people who voted for them.

The fact that you had less problems late at night may have been due to other factors, too- did your ISP improve their infrastructure? I would bet that they did. That alone could have helped. Also, the amount of traffic on NetFlix's servers changes over time, so you cold do a bandwidth test on their site to verify what's happening when it works well vs poorly.

They're all in cahoots, IMO.

 

[TheWarrior]

There are laws in place already that prevent ISPs from doing this; the Sherman Act, FTC Act and the Clayton Act.
One point I was making above is that there wasn't a problem before Net Neutrality since laws were already in place. NN just isn't necessary, except to exempt those large edge providers. You can't just regulate part of the Internet and leave some exempt.

Those are decades old laws that do not grant the government sufficient power to dictate terms to ISP's on how to run their networks. You cited Title 2 which means you should understand how the FCC has evolved and needs to continue to do so as communications evolve. Net Neutrality would be one such evolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

There was a problem, and even continues to be problems. Like in the early 2000's when Comcast, ATT, and others were tried for restricting their customer's access. Similar complaints were filed against Verizon, this year!

Another problem is the throttling of connection speed, up to and including to a competitors site - which is Netflix's argument: They provide access to a network, of movies/digital content, but ISP's provide access (copper) to their site - how can Netflix remain competitive if the ISP is intentionally slowing the connection to provide faster speeds to the likes of TimeWarner and Disney?

Net Neutrality needs to be expanded on, especially if there are abuses still occurring, if Verizon was going beyond 'System Maintenance' when it was accused of throttling this year. Overturning it is a signal to ISP's that they are free to do what they want - how does that benefit the consumer?

Under title 2 ISP providers were to be regulated, not Google, Facebook, Amazon etc. These edge providers are free to manipulate content, searches, and ad placement. There is nothing neutral about that.

The one question that many can't or won't answer is Was the Internet not open and neutral for the last 25 years? Content providers like Netflix championed net neutrality with claims that they couldn't provide their service at the same prices if it wasn't in place, however that seems more politically motivated than fact since Netflix's costs are dominated by media licensing fees and production costs, not communication fees.

Google, Facebook, Amazon etc are not Internet Service Providers, I do not understand why you would associate them as an argument against net neutrality, they are unrelated as they operate their own networks of computers, ISP's provide the copper to connect your computer to those networks. And it is those ISP's that should NOT have control over how, when, and what you choose to access. That is a free internet! I don't care what Facebook advertises, except when it's Russian Propaganda. That's deserving of a trial too, but I digress....

I have 100mbps, I rarely see anything over 30 while downloading on the Xbox one, whose limiting my connection? Microsoft or my isp? Iirc Netflix got caught advertising hd content yet they were not allowing the bandwidth necessary for true hd. It's a loss at the consumer level either way. Net neutrality didn't do a damn thing for us, except let us pay for high speed internet without the ability to utilize 100% of what we were paying for.

And that is a common consumer complaint that obviously lies with the service providers excepting where your software needs to be updated or aging modems/routers/computers need to be replaced(I doubled my connection speed after updating router software FWIW).

My friends in Hong Kong enjoy hundreds of megabits per second everywhere, I am happy to get 6-9 mbps on my 20mbps connection (which to be fair, seems to offer that same on a computer, two phones, and AppleTV or PS4 simultaneously which would add up to more than 20). Point is, where is our infrastructure to allow such high speeds everywhere? Wouldn't that be 'Great'?

I didn't look up the Netflix issue, but I would hope they would have resolved that with the affected customers. But I don't see how that explains Net Neutrality 'not doing a damn thing'. It's been a long year of over turning, why aren't we moving forward? If we the consumers agree we want the free internet we've been enjoying where we can access anything we want, then we should agree we want that same internet to be accessed at the speeds we pay for. That IS Net Neutrality.

 

[everettT]

I've read all 400 pages so... on amazon, Google, Facebook the are called edge providers which is why they are important. I'll be happy to link articles, briefs, and video links when I get home if you like.

 

[herbu]

It is about capitalism and free enterprise. Your ISP must tell you exactly what they offer and how much it will cost. If you don't like their product, buy from somebody else. And if enough people don't like their product for them to be profitable, they will change their product. Gnashing of teeth and claims of doom and gloom are just parroted or political.

 

[Ponzio]

It is about capitalism and free enterprise. Your ISP must tell you exactly what they offer and how much it will cost. If you don't like their product, buy from somebody else. And if enough people don't like their product for them to be profitable, they will change their product. Gnashing of teeth and claims of doom and gloom are just parroted or political.

Even when there are only two choices ... in my area ... and the prices are the same? That's competition?

 

[KenM10759]

It is about capitalism and free enterprise. Your ISP must tell you exactly what they offer and how much it will cost. If you don't like their product, buy from somebody else. And if enough people don't like their product for them to be profitable, they will change their product. Gnashing of teeth and claims of doom and gloom are just parroted or political.

How is this fair to those who only have one choice? That's a LOT of people.

 

[herbu]

How is this fair to those who only have one choice? That's a LOT of people.

Listen guys, I understand. I'm in the country. DSL. No cable, optical, 4G, etc. We have both DSL and satellite modems. The satellite is faster, the DSL is more reliable. BUT I don't think it's the government's problem or concern. If/When there are enough people out here to justify the expense, some company will bring high speed.

Fiber optics and multiple choices are not a right. Neither is high speed internet. They are business offerings and will react to demand. Our taxes should not be used to subsidize or guarantee anyone's internet access or speed. It is technology. It will evolve, become more common and cheaper without taxpayer cost or political control.

 

[TheWarrior]

I've read all 400 pages so... on amazon, Google, Facebook the are called edge providers which is why they are important. I'll be happy to link articles, briefs, and video links when I get home if you like.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/31/does-the-fcc-really-not-get-it-about-the-internet/?utm_term=.b03e34fd396c

The way internet communications work means we are all edge providers. But that would end if ISP's are allowed to discriminate protocol at will, which is what Net Neutrality prevents!

Sorry my responses are '400 pages' but this is a complex issue which needs to be better understood:

Fiber optics and multiple choices are not a right. Neither is high speed internet. They are business offerings and will react to demand. Our taxes should not be used to subsidize or guarantee anyone's internet access or speed. It is technology. It will evolve, become more common and cheaper without taxpayer cost or political control.

Because apparently some people think Net Neutrality is about subsidizing internet access to provide free/affordable access.... and completely miss the point!

 

[KenM10759]

I think of internet access today as an essential utility because in smaller, remote communities its availability is often the only means of earning a living. As our society becomes less able (or willing) to offer manufacturing, agricultural and other traditional jobs for livable wages, people are faced with either finding ways to make money with computers or move to areas where there still are jobs.

I think about basic electricity service as a comparison. Years ago it took an awfully long time to run wires out to more remote or sparsely populated rural areas because the "business model" didn't support spending the money to do it without the income for return on investment. That "new technology" of the day (electricity) needed some government intervention to get it to nearly all people. Even today there are many municipally-owned power companies still providing, and oddly enough around here those are cheaper rates than what I pay to National Grid. And those towns don't have particularly higher tax rates to support it.

All I'm suggesting is that there's no need to change it right now. Let us engage in an overall review and have public input on what the future and scope of internet access in the US should look like.

 

[pewternhrata]

In my area we have essentially one choice, there are a few providers but only one that offers speeds over 20mbps. My last provider I was paying $60 a month for 15, woulf have cost $90 for 20. I switched providers and am now paying $55 for 100. I have a few friends in the business and summed up its the cost for another provider to build/update a network. Provider A is already established with a solid network and majority of customers. Why would another provider come along and beef up its network, in hopes that customers will switch. were not talking just a few dollars to do so. If company B did come through with lower rates it would cause company A to lose customers. Leaving again, only one solid option and leaving provider B as the 'monopoly'. But wait, let's use taxes to pay for everyone to get stupid fast speeds, because as you know, the government has endless pockets or even social security that they "steal from" or hey the rich should pay for it.
I think this entire internet for everyone is blown up. Get a cell phone, boom you have access. Get a low cost plan, boom...internet. It's not the issue of not getting the internet, it's the uneducated thinking they have to get gigabit speeds and not understanding that they will never top out those speeds. Is it 'fair' that some areas get faster speeds than others? Really? That's the itch fest going on?

 

[KenM10759]

There are vast areas of even Vermont, in the densely populated northeast US that have zero cell phone coverage. How's that going to work.

 

[pewternhrata]

That's not necessarily true that the populated markets do not currently have coverage. That issue is more true in any rural markets regardless of region, where is the profit to spend millions to recoup a few pennies in the mountains. Unfortunately that is life. Hong Kong was brought up earlier, but look at the population density. It has the consumers to pay and back up large fast expensive networks.

 

[herbu]

Because apparently some people think Net Neutrality is about subsidizing internet access to provide free/affordable access.... and completely miss the point!

I think it is about government control. Conservatives resist it, Liberals embrace it.

A fair parallel is healthcare. Various arguments center around specific people or conditions, but that's not what it's really about. It is about putting 1/6 of the country's economy under complete control of the government, and it's an abject failure.

But don't listen to me. I'm dumb. psbfan almost convinced me of my misconceptions with his eloquent explanation of why I'm wrong. While I can't tell you how much I appreciate his clarity, I'll just enjoy the gains in our stock portfolio and upcoming tax cuts... and wait for free market competition to support the internet speeds I'd like, on the sites and at the times I want.

 

[TheWarrior]

I think it is about government control. Conservatives resist it, Liberals embrace it.

A fair parallel is healthcare. Various arguments center around specific people or conditions, but that's not what it's really about. It is about putting 1/6 of the country's economy under complete control of the government, and it's an abject failure.

But don't listen to me. I'm dumb. psbfan almost convinced me of my misconceptions with his eloquent explanation of why I'm wrong. While I can't tell you how much I appreciate his clarity, I'll just enjoy the gains in our stock portfolio and upcoming tax cuts... and wait for free market competition to support the internet speeds I'd like, on the sites and at the times I want.

No part of that, other than the first sentence, had anything to do with Net Neutrality.

I don't think you're dumb, I think you've been horribly misled. Ending Net Neutrality is not a gateway for you to "get the internet speeds you'd like, on the sites and times you want." Ending Net Neutrality will be quite the opposite!

 

[herbu]

Ending Net Neutrality will be quite the opposite!

True... if you don't believe in the power of the consumer. I do, and that's what makes me a conservative. I believe providers will compete for customers with better offerings and cheaper prices, and will be incented to develop improvements so they can.

(Now c'mon fanboy... another "dumb" please. Your feelings are as compelling to me as your argument.)

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

True... if you don't believe in the power of the consumer. I do, and that's what makes me a conservative. I believe providers will compete for customers with better offerings and cheaper prices, and will be incented to develop improvements so they can.

(Now c'mon fanboy... another "dumb" please. Your feelings are as compelling to me as your argument.)

I do believe in voting with your wallet and normally that's how things equalize themselves, the issue has been already described to you several times but I'll try to keep it simple in order to explain why voting with your wallet or "consumer power" unfortunately does not apply here.
1) Internet has in fact became a necessity, just like water and electricity - you must have to deal with state and federal government agencies.
2) Education - very often nowadays require internet connection to receive and submit the homework
3) Banking, Investing, Managing retirement, shopping - all require internet
4) Working from home, video conferencing, long distance voip calls
5) Running a business - In my opinion if a business doesn't have SOME internet presence, it may as well does not exists. I always use yelp/Angie's/google listing to find local services and read the reviews.
6) Entertainment - Over the internet TV and streaming video on demand are rising in popularity and force competition to provide more consumer friendly packages and prices.
7) U.N. REPORT DECLARES INTERNET ACCESS A HUMAN RIGHT

I hope this is compelling enough list for to agree that Internet should be treated as utility. With that utilities are very strictly regulated (for good reasons) and no one seems to be complaining about it.

These are also HUGE economical, political and technical issues why creating new local or national ISP to create competition to local incumbent are very very hard. Even Google with their billions of cash is struggling in fiber deployment, past few smaller towns, and almost ready to throw the towel on original idea of nationwide fiber only isp idea. They already gave up on offering TV service. I could provide you with hundreds of links on subject matter or you could research it yourself.

Bottom line - Right now most likely you have only one option of broadband provider, which in your case DSL or SAT - neither of these could counted as such at all - do you see anytime soon any large enough ISP decides for same of VERY long time ROI provide you with broadband service??? I think not. At best case you municipal ISP project may be an alternative, but never going to happen with your mindset that your taxes should not support public internet access.

However I do agree with that Net Neutrality by it self is not solution, but competition won't magically appear. Only way to fix both Net Neutrality issues and lack of local competition is much stronger regulation, specifically with enabling local last mile unbounding, which will allow customers to keep using existing last mile infrastructure from existing incumbent , but allowing competition on providing actual internet service.

 

[everettT]

I'll ask again, what was wrong and what improved for anyone before 2015?

Not for nothing, if the UN is a force of enforcement for the US, we have lost as a nation .

 

[pewternhrata]

I'll ask again, what was wrong and what improved for anyone before 2015?

Not for nothing, if the UN is a force of enforcement for the US, we have lost as a nation .

Agreed. Or on another topic, the UN does good, but...history...jp morgan...I'll stop there, in other words I wouldn't trust the UN as a source for net neutrality (may as well get into right vs left) lol.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'll ask again, what was wrong and what improved for anyone before 2015?

Not for nothing, if the UN is a force of enforcement for the US, we have lost as a nation .

UN , from our standpoint should not be seen as enforcement force by any means. I meant to say that this organization which is by far main function is maintaining peace or provide assistance in nutural distasters, helping improving lives for people living in worst parts of the world. Even they consider internet as human right.
If you consider such example with defeatism, then we really lost as a nation.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Agreed. Or on another topic, the UN does good, but...history...jp morgan...I'll stop there, in other words I wouldn't trust the UN as a source for net neutrality (may as well get into right vs left) lol.

Jp Morgan, like any other bank did a lot of shady stuff. However they have nothing to with this conversation. Let's just stop here and focus on subject at hand.
I'm not JPM employee and I don't work for company owned by JPM.