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

[herbu]

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

BSA, I'll agree that the internet has become a "necessity" in the same vein as the telephone or a car. I have done everything you list above with DSL. Certainly I would have liked faster, but it was what it was and I managed.

Today, everyone doesn't have cell phone coverage at their house. Some don't have land lines. Some don't have a car or a bus route. Is that a government problem? I'm a bit puzzled when I see people in the city complaining about a lack of things that people in the country regularly do without.

I have a cellphone. I have a laptop. I have various Home Theater components connected to the internet. I can go days at a time without using the cellphone. I can shop, surf the web, do mail, and used to do work on my laptop with DSL. I can stream video and update firmware with DSL. So no, I don't consider high speed internet a "necessity" for the population.

It is certainly a necessity for some businesses to compete. It is certainly a convenience for many individuals. I absolutely appreciate my own increase in speed over the last 20 years. And I have, in fact, experienced throttling, and shopped around because of it. But it is not something that should be mandated or controlled by the government.

And I'm sorry, but a "U.N. Report" enjoys similar credibility with me as a "dumb" rating. But I do appreciate your time and effort to explain. I understand your points. I just don't agree.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I'm on a bus to work and a bit limited to writing detailed response, but @herbu you are contradict yourself.
You do agree that "reasonably" fast internet is a necessity for most people.
You certainly do take a usage of it and it's fruits (like arguing with strangers on forums ;-) ) but in end you say that you disagree that it is in fact a necessity.
So which one is it?
Internet Speed it self is up to debate and as long as reduced speed doesn't interfere with functionality, it could be torelated. I've just mentioned dsl as example of old last mile internet tech. It's still works of course, but it's not the technology which one of most richest and powerful country in world should be aiming to use in near future.

 

[herbu]

I'm on a bus to work and a bit limited to writing detailed response, but @herbu you are contradict yourself.
You do agree that "reasonably" fast internet is a necessity for most people.
You certainly do take a usage of it and it's fruits (like arguing with strangers on forums ;-) ) but in end you say that you disagree that it is in fact a necessity.
So which one is it?
Internet Speed it self is up to debate and as long as reduced speed doesn't interfere with functionality, it could be torelated. I've just mentioned dsl as example of old last mile internet tech. It's still works of course, but it's not the technology which one of most richest and powerful country in world should be aiming to use in near future.

BSA, when you get time, maybe you can read my post again. I'm not sure I ever said it was a necessity for most people. It is a convenience for most people. It is a necessity for some businesses for whom speed is critical.

I take advantage of my DSL like I have for the last 20 years. I also added a satellite dish and modem as it is faster. Less reliable, with some lag, but faster. That's why we kept and use both. And of course I appreciate the increase in speed over the years, but I'm still at 3-4MPS. So no, I do not think high speed is a necessity for most people.

I also take advantage of air conditioning in my home. And I like my 4-stroke outboard motor. And Lord only knows what cool things will be available 50 years from now. And I agree we "should be aiming" at something better than DSL. But I believe the private sector will accomplish that much better/faster/cheaper than the government. And I see more harm than good in the government trying to legislate who can offer what service/speed to whom.

 

[TheWarrior]

BSA, when you get time, maybe you can read my post again. I'm not sure I ever said it was a necessity for most people. It is a convenience for most people. It is a necessity for some businesses for whom speed is critical.

I take advantage of my DSL like I have for the last 20 years. I also added a satellite dish and modem as it is faster. Less reliable, with some lag, but faster. That's why we kept and use both. And of course I appreciate the increase in speed over the years, but I'm still at 3-4MPS. So no, I do not think high speed is a necessity for most people.

I also take advantage of air conditioning in my home. And I like my 4-stroke outboard motor. And Lord only knows what cool things will be available 50 years from now. And I agree we "should be aiming" at something better than DSL. But I believe the private sector will accomplish that much better/faster/cheaper than the government. And I see more harm than good in the government trying to legislate who can offer what service/speed to whom.

You said it was a necessity in your first sentence. Telephone lines are managed by the government, just like the safety features and performance of your car.

Your argument is all over the place.

Net Neutrality is about ensuring you can access anything you want, any time you want through the internet connection of your choice.

By arguing against Net Neutrality, you are saying that you WANT to have your speed and CHOICE of websites restricted.

I'll say it again, Net Neutrality is NOT about the overall speed of your connection. It is about allowing ISP's to sell you portions of the internet, rather than only selling the connection.

 

[everettT]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-google-facebook-duopoly-threatens-diversity-of-thought-1513642519

Again points to lack of net neutrality....

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

BSA, when you get time, maybe you can read my post again. I'm not sure I ever said it was a necessity for most people. It is a convenience for most people. It is a necessity for some businesses for whom speed is critical.

I take advantage of my DSL like I have for the last 20 years. I also added a satellite dish and modem as it is faster. Less reliable, with some lag, but faster. That's why we kept and use both. And of course I appreciate the increase in speed over the years, but I'm still at 3-4MPS. So no, I do not think high speed is a necessity for most people.

Forget about my UN point, I don't why it tickles so many of conservative guys, but whatever. Pretend it's not where.
I did reread your post and now I see the was in double quotes. You're being sarcastic, I get it. I love sarcasm. Unfortunately behind your stubbornness to see what in front of you, you refuse to see the obvious. You think you don't REQUIRE this newfangled thing called "internet". In your youth things were working perfectly fine without it. Heck, I'm going to guess even telephone was new back then.

You could be perfectly fine of going to spend whole work day in DMV to renew car registration (oh, NVM, I "forgot" - Car is a "luxury" and a "privilege" to own for any adult living in rural areas)
No problem of doing same to pay taxes. Or walk few miles (or more) to nearest neighbor to ask if their kid homework.
Shortly, just re-read my post points on this and try to skip last point about UN.

Again, Let's not detail this conversation into what ISP tech is best, This is not about it. Type of internet delivered is merely a technology. I have some own preferences for technical reasons, I guess a reliable service like DSL is "fine", but again this is not main point here.

But I believe the private sector will accomplish that much better/faster/cheaper than the government. And I see more harm than good in the government trying to legislate who can offer what service/speed to whom."

Believing in something sometimes means completely ignoring reality. Private sector is greedy and getting greedier. Improving of internet in both connectivity options, speeds etc would not magically appear by private sector without COMPETITION. I went long ways trying to explain to you that creating competition in ISP is VERY HARD and same old incumbents do and will fight hard to preserve their (defacto) monopolies.

Your again missing the whole point of NN, Gov is not trying legislate "who can offer what service/speed to whom" at all. This is has nothing to do with NN. In absence of competition, NN rules merely said if your ISP is "natural" monopoly, at least - be fair and treat ALL traffic equally without slowing down parts of it.

I highly recommend for you to go back a page or two and watch Jon Oliver videos to help you understand what is about.

 

[everettT]

Jon Oliver? A partisan political comedian providing straight information?

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Jon Oliver? A partisan political comedian providing straight information?

"Sometimes" (ok often) exaggerated, but always reliable and straight shooter. I would not call him partisan, liberal yes, partisan not. Lets not confuse these

 

[Steve81]

Net Neutrality is about ensuring you can access anything you want, any time you want through the internet connection of your choice.

FWIW, here's the way I see it:

100/100 Mbps Internet. Not sites approved by Verizon. Not sites that have greased the wheels. Internet. If they throttle sites that don't pony up (or sites like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that compete with their video offerings), then they're selling something else and need to adjust their advertising accordingly.

 

[herbu]

You said it was a necessity in your first sentence.

Perhaps you would care to read the whole sentence.

 

[herbu]

Private sector is greedy and getting greedier. Improving of internet in both connectivity options, speeds etc would not magically appear by private sector without COMPETITION.

OK. Assuming your "main point" immediately followed the statement that I'm missing the "main point", the above quote is the crux.

"Private sector is greedy and getting greedier." Right. Walmart is evil, drug companies are evil, banks are evil, etc. Sure there are evil examples, but there are evil examples of government, too. I do not buy into that default view.

"Improving... would not magically appear by private sector without competition." I agree completely. And I think NN actually removes the competition by specifying the product that can be offered. Did your medical insurance choices improve with obamacare? Mine didn't. In fact, every insurance company bailed from my area but one. Now there is zero competition and our price is outrageous.

BSA, I think we have a fundamental difference in philosophy... (like the other 2 halves of the country). Neither of us will change the other's mind, but I do enjoy the discussions.

I also enjoy when you join with my sarcasm. And while maybe a bit exaggerated, the car analogy is still fair and accurate.
1. If you don't make enough money to buy a car, then yes, you walk to the grocery store.
2. I should be allowed to buy a Corolla if I don't need, or want to pay for, the performance of a Vette.

Please sir... may I have another "dumb"?

 

[TheWarrior]

FWIW, here's the way I see it:
View attachment 23095
100/100 Mbps Internet. Not sites approved by Verizon. Not sites that have greased the wheels. Internet. If they throttle sites that don't pony up (or sites like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that compete with their video offerings), then they're selling something else and need to adjust their advertising accordingly.

I'm in agreement with all of that, but do not understand how you see that as outside the Net Neutrality umbrella. ISPs have been getting in trouble for the issues you cited for two decades, we only instituted Net Neutrality two years ago!

 

[TheWarrior]

Perhaps you would care to read the whole sentence.

You keep asking us to re-read your posts:

"BSA, I'll agree that the internet has become a "necessity" in the same vein as the telephone or a car."

And this was my response (to you telling BSA to re-read your post):

"You said it was a necessity in your first sentence. Telephone lines are managed by the government, just like the safety features and performance of your car."

If you're not going to respond to my comments, then we aren't having a discussion - so I'll try one more time:

We are currently enjoying net neutrality, you get the speed you pay for (depending on location) and thats where ISP's control ends. The Wiki I posted highlights numerous instances where ISP's were tried in court over throttling internet speeds etc. It's illegal, to the point that we felt it necessary to add guidelines to the FCC for it - known as Net Neutrality.

BSA also brought up the "competition" argument - there isn't a choice of copper wires for you to choose from. Creating competition over copper wires is far more complex than you understand, this elementary view of supply and demand does not apply! The internet is now a utility used by everyone.

I think you are genuinely misguided on this issue and are arguing against your own interests.

 

[Gunny]

Wayde - While well-written and informative, I think your article makes the classic mistake of assuming everyone understands the principles at play here. A simplified and objective explanation of what "Net neutrality" actually means would have been very helpful.

As I understand it, the debate is whether or not companies like AT&T and Comcast will be allowed to slow down traffic from large bandwidth consumers such as Netflix unless a special fee is paid. If that is correct [and I acknowledge it may not be] then I believe it is ultimately a bad idea. In ATL we are starting to see these "pay to ride" lanes on our freeways. The obvious intention was to reduce commute times for those willing to pay for the privilege. It doesn't work and here is why. In most cases, no new capacity was created. Instead capacity was effectively reduced by taking an available freeway [hmm "free"way] lane and making it unavailable for most of us, regardless of how many passengers occupy the vehicle. If the majority of commuters decided to pay the fee then we would just have another congested commuter lane that saves you no time over the free ones. As it stands, most do not pay so these lanes are indeed faster for the few who do, but the meager fees generated can't even put a dent in the huge expense of the infrastructure investment and all of the technology and personnel required to administer the system. Governments never seem to grasp economic reality. The problem is, when private companies essentially become monopolies, they tend to behave like monopolies, or in other words, like governments.

Thanks for an interesting article!

 

[Pyrrho]

FWIW, here's the way I see it:
View attachment 23095
100/100 Mbps Internet. Not sites approved by Verizon. Not sites that have greased the wheels. Internet. If they throttle sites that don't pony up (or sites like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that compete with their video offerings), then they're selling something else and need to adjust their advertising accordingly.

I think you will find that if you read all of the fine print when you sign up (almost no one does read such stuff these days), they don't have to give you what they appear to be offering you in the big print. For an obvious example, they probably are not guaranteeing that you will ever actually achieve the advertised download speed. But they will not be giving you a discount for it being 10% slower (or however much slower it may be).

Basically, companies can do anything, until there is a law stopping them from doing it. And even then, they can do it, and get away with it, until someone PROVES that they are doing something illegal in court. Even then, companies sometimes continue to violate the law.

(In fact, even governments sometimes do such things. Right now, there is a law in Virginia against swearing in public, and people get fined for it. Even though the law is unconstitutional, and everyone knows this.)


Given the way the world works, trusting an advertisement is a very unwise thing to do. Verizon (and other ISPs) can screw you up the a... and probably get away with it. What are you going to do, cancel your internet connection?

People have complained for many years about their cable companies being terrible. Yet they still paid for cable anyway, so the cable companies didn't care.


With no net neutrality, even if you proved that Verizon was screwing with you, the only thing you could do is cancel your service, since without net neutrality, it is perfectly legal for them to not be neutral when it comes to different sites.


Edited to add: Very probably, with your ISP, in the fine print, you have agreed to binding arbitration and have agreed to give up your right to sue them at all. Yeah, good luck getting them to give you exactly what they have in their ads. The fine print matters far more than the big print. Have you ever noticed those ads about getting things for "FREE" and then when you read the fine print, you have to pay them something for it? The big print in an ad is commonly a lie, and, apparently, perfectly legal to be a lie, since advertisers have been lying about free stuff for decades.

 

[panteragstk]

FWIW, here's the way I see it:
View attachment 23095
100/100 Mbps Internet. Not sites approved by Verizon. Not sites that have greased the wheels. Internet. If they throttle sites that don't pony up (or sites like Netflix, Hulu, etc. that compete with their video offerings), then they're selling something else and need to adjust their advertising accordingly.

I think this is the main point that many seem to not understand. Sure, competition in areas that can support it is nice, but in rural areas (as was pointed out) you don't really get competition.

That's not the issue for me (annoying, yes, but not the issue). The issue is exactly what you said. If I'm paying for my 1000/1000 mbps connection and Netflix is constantly buffering because it's being throttled because I didn't buy the Netflix package from my provider, that is where Net Neutrality should step in. I'm not going to pay extra for an Internet HOA lane.

 

[Steve81]

I'm in agreement with all of that, but do not understand how you see that as outside the Net Neutrality umbrella.

It's not, simply an alternative point of view with some grounding in law.

I think you will find that if you read all of the fine print when you sign up (almost no one does read such stuff these days), they don't have to give you what they appear to be offering you in the big print.

AFAIK, from a legal standpoint that's two separate things, i.e. false/deceptive advertising vs breech of contract.

Edit: Think of it this way: suppose Bank of America starts advertising a new savings account with zero fees, ever. You sign up for this account, and like most, you don't read through the 50 pages of fine print associated with such a transaction. One month later, you see a $30 charge for bank fees in your zero fees savings account. You call customer service and they tell you the zero fees bit is a big old lie, and the contract you signed says you owe $30 per month for your zero fees savings account. Technically not a breech of contract, but BOA would be in deep poop either way.

 

[herbu]

"BSA, I'll agree that the internet has become a "necessity" in the same vein as the telephone or a car."

"You said it was a necessity in your first sentence.

Thanks for your time and response, but perhaps the meaning of my sentence was not clear. "In the same vein" means I do not believe a telephone or a car are necessities for everyone. They are certainly a convenience. They are certainly necessary for some people and some businesses. But they are not a right, or an entitlement. Like the internet, phones and cars are a commodity.

Some people have come to depend on the internet for convenience, and it does offer that. I'm one of them, and I understand. It would be inconvenient to do without it, or go back to dial-up speeds. So I pay for the fastest I can get.

But think about the provider. A good example is the road described above. Existing equipment does not have an infinite capacity. Increased traffic slows operation. So as the provider, what do you do? You would like to install, and perhaps even develop better equipment. That takes money, (ie. profit).

But as the provider, what do you do in the meantime? It will take time and money to expand for the heavy traffic. And it's likely not a one-time thing. Data usage will probably continue to grow, so upgrading equipment will probably be an ongoing exercise, and will continue to take time and money.

So how do you make the money to pay for it? Should you charge everyone, light and heavy users, the same thing? Does the guy who streams Netflix or plays online games pay the same as the guy who looks at a forum a couple times a week? If everybody only used 1GPS, would you still need to expand? Maybe 1GPS is plenty for one person, another wants 5GPS and another wants 100GPS. Should a law require that they all pay the same thing? I don't think so.

As for the fine print, that is neither a cause nor result of internet speeds or providers. Caveat Emptor. (How long has it been since any civilization spoke Latin?) I agree that few actually read the fine print, and companies make their products look golden in their advertisements. So what else is new?

So in short, internet access and speed are commodities. You want the best, you pay for it. If the best is not available to you, you get the best that is available and that you can afford. There is nothing unfair about that.

(Y'all keep those "dumbs" coming. Good thing we're not in one of those "Safe Spaces" you seem to like.)

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Thanks for your time and response, but perhaps the meaning of my sentence was not clear. "In the same vein" means I do not believe a telephone or a car are necessities for everyone. They are certainly a convenience. They are certainly necessary for some people and some businesses. But they are not a right, or an entitlement. Like the internet, phones and cars are a commodity.

I completely understand your points and I 100% disagree. Internet may seem like mere convenience to you, but it's absolutely a necessary for many, especially in rural areas where internet may provide them only source of income.

But think about the provider. A good example is the road described above. Existing equipment does not have an infinite capacity. Increased traffic slows operation. So as the provider, what do you do? You would like to install, and perhaps even develop better equipment. That takes money, (ie. profit).

But as the provider, what do you do in the meantime? It will take time and money to expand for the heavy traffic. And it's likely not a one-time thing. Data usage will probably continue to grow, so upgrading equipment will probably be an ongoing exercise, and will continue to take time and money.

Wrong on many levels. Providing high bandwidth to backed back-haul is easy, given front end - consumer facing last mile is slow ie 0.5 to 3mbps connection, even if everyone saturating it full, back haul will absolutely not going to suffer and even if it does, and this is CRITICAL point - ISPs DON'T CARE.
They don't care since they have a monopoly. SAT internet can't be used at all for some things like voip for example so it's not viable alternative. Many of them long time ago realized that instead expensive wired internet upgraded - it would be much cheaper and much profitable to deploy "fixed wireless" internet which is ridden with issues like latency (not as bad as SAT thou) and typically fixed and low usage caps, which are arbitrary. In summary - higher usage of internet by consumer does not and will not make ISPs install nor develop better equipment since they don't care. they lack motivation.

So how do you make the money to pay for it? Should you charge everyone, light and heavy users, the same thing? Does the guy who streams Netflix or plays online games pay the same as the guy who looks at a forum a couple times a week? If everybody only used 1GPS, would you still need to expand? Maybe 1GPS is plenty for one person, another wants 5GPS and another wants 100GPS. Should a law require that they all pay the same thing? I don't think so.

Ok, "Heavy" traffic usage has nothing to do with last mile infrastructure. Whole argument of if you download more you slow it down for rest of customers is 100% lie, spread around by not honest people.
It's so much of lie that even some ISPs VPs have admitted it's a lie
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Dramatically-Expands-Unnecessary-Broadband-Usage-Caps-138064

Net Neutrality was NOT asking everybody to pay same for internet. You're either misinformed or lying.
It's just for isp NOT to slow down one traffic compared to other based on demand of payment.

 

[TheWarrior]

Thanks for your time and response, but perhaps the meaning of my sentence was not clear. "In the same vein" means I do not believe a telephone or a car are necessities for everyone. They are certainly a convenience. They are certainly necessary for some people and some businesses. But they are not a right, or an entitlement. Like the internet, phones and cars are a commodity.

Some people have come to depend on the internet for convenience, and it does offer that. I'm one of them, and I understand. It would be inconvenient to do without it, or go back to dial-up speeds. So I pay for the fastest I can get.

But think about the provider. A good example is the road described above. Existing equipment does not have an infinite capacity. Increased traffic slows operation. So as the provider, what do you do? You would like to install, and perhaps even develop better equipment. That takes money, (ie. profit).

But as the provider, what do you do in the meantime? It will take time and money to expand for the heavy traffic. And it's likely not a one-time thing. Data usage will probably continue to grow, so upgrading equipment will probably be an ongoing exercise, and will continue to take time and money.

So how do you make the money to pay for it? Should you charge everyone, light and heavy users, the same thing? Does the guy who streams Netflix or plays online games pay the same as the guy who looks at a forum a couple times a week? If everybody only used 1GPS, would you still need to expand? Maybe 1GPS is plenty for one person, another wants 5GPS and another wants 100GPS. Should a law require that they all pay the same thing? I don't think so.

As for the fine print, that is neither a cause nor result of internet speeds or providers. Caveat Emptor. (How long has it been since any civilization spoke Latin?) I agree that few actually read the fine print, and companies make their products look golden in their advertisements. So what else is new?

So in short, internet access and speed are commodities. You want the best, you pay for it. If the best is not available to you, you get the best that is available and that you can afford. There is nothing unfair about that.

(Y'all keep those "dumbs" coming. Good thing we're not in one of those "Safe Spaces" you seem to like.)

And thank you, sir. Thank you for a glimpse in to your perspective. And I have to say, I am utterly confused. On the one hand you argue that access to the internet is a commodity, but then you go on to argue that ISP's are at a disadvantage and are some how not profiting sufficiently to expand and maintain their networks despite an ever increasing population of customers.

Internet being a commodity is not what Net Neutrality is about. No one is getting anything for free, nor are they arguing to receive anything for free. Net Neutrality is a protocol by the FCC, meaning it is very much in the same vein as cars and telephones as being regulated by the government - And it needs to be due to the abuses ISP's have committed and are documented in the form of litigation.

ISP's being at a disadvantage is nonsense, and I am not sure how you overlook the numerous Federal Cases that were tried against several ISP's, and remain sympathetic. I'm shocked you would post publicly that you would give up your right to a free internet in exchange for corporate profits, but then, you clearly do not understand the Net Neutrality issue, at all. - Which I think was their goal all along!

While I don't consider you a liar, you are very clearly misinformed:

"So in short, internet access and speed are commodities. You want the best, you pay for it. If the best is not available to you, you get the best that is available and that you can afford. There is nothing unfair about that."

That is how things are NOW! Net Neutrality was, until the other week, FCC Protocol that helped ensure that all we did was pay for varying speeds of internet. Being against Net Neutrality means you want your ISP to sell you the internet in pieces, based on what content you access.

That is not a free internet, and that is what you have just been arguing for. And that is why I am trying to help you see the reality of this situation, because Net Neutrality was benefitting ALL OF US.