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

[gene]

The end is nigh for net neutrality as it exists today. Trump-appointed FCC chief Ajit Pai put forth a plan last week that promises to roll back Obama’s net neutrality policies. All that’s left is for the five FCC commissioners to vote in December, making the rollback a virtual certainty. But, will the principles of net neutrality die with the FCC? Considering Obama's net neutrality was built on laws designed for a depression-era phone company, perhaps the door is open for modern law that govern the Internet.

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

 

[everettT]

Since the whole thing is partisan politics, and the term neutrality was/is a joke, why the topic ? Just curious

 

[Wayde Robson]

A lot of people take the current policy seriously. I'm not sure what you mean by net neutrality being a joke, but yeah the issue is suddenly partisan politics.

How do such disparate issues like abortion, gun control, minimum wage, global warming now net neutrality fit so neatly down party lines? It seems like pre-programming, people that just think what they're told.

But how it became a topic is that was an article on the main website that spawns a topic automatically.

 

[everettT]

I was referring to the title as it is misleading on the premise, just like planned parenthood would be better called avoid parenthood. I'm just disgusted with the sociopaths and narcissists spending our money recklessly and empowering themselves in the process

 

[yepimonfire]

A lot of people take the current policy seriously. I'm not sure what you mean by net neutrality being a joke, but yeah the issue is suddenly partisan politics.

How do such disparate issues like abortion, gun control, minimum wage, global warming now net neutrality fit so neatly down party lines? It seems like pre-programming, people that just think what they're told.

But how it became a topic is that was an article on the main website that spawns a topic automatically.

+1

I may be a young millennial who hasn’t been around to see that many administrations, but I could have sworn learning in grade school and in college that throughout the history of this country, both parties came together and worked to achieve goals based on common sense.

Seems that today, both sides are completely polarized, and just sit around spewing whatever diarrhea their party feeds them, whether through the media or what not, rather than stopping to assess whether or not the policy’s and ideals they’re supporting are based on logic and reason.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I was referring to the title as it is misleading on the premise, just like planned parenthood would be better called avoid parenthood. I'm just disgusted with the sociopaths and narcissists spending our money recklessly and empowering themselves in the process

By the title, and article... what I tried to express was just the idea that "net neutrality" is a principle, it's *not* the rules as created by the Obama administration. If net neutrality is important, if it's the accepted definition of a free and open Internet experience from our ISPs and not a walled garden, not a kind-of Comcast retro-AOL experience... then Obama's 2015 FCC rules are grossly insufficient.

That's not partisan politics... politics are all these people (mostly on the left, who take net neutrality seriously) running around spouting hyperbole as if "this is the end of net neutrality"... No, it's not. Not if net neutrality is important. If it's just BS that we're going to forget about and when Comcast or AT&T offers everyone free data on Netflix and Spotify, and we accept those deals... then net neutrality is really dead and it will have been us that killed it.

Apologies in advance to Netflix and Spotify, I don't know if they'd accept such a deal and be net neutrality's Judas, but the CEO of Netflix Reed Hastings has already all but said he doesn't give a poop about net neutrality anymore. So, it's very possible Netflix will cut a "preferred partner" deal IMHO.

 

[pewternhrata]

This article is not what I thought it was going to, it seemed more informative to the point that with or without it, both sides suffer from extreme bs.

I don't understand it, I say drop it. Through all the 'scare tactic' articles, I don't see a reason to keep it as it doesn't seem to support much of anything.

An idiotic example to me; without net neutrality, an isp will choose between PlayStation or Xbox. If Sony offers up more money than Microsoft the isp will allow Sony but block Microsoft. I don't understand where this idea comes from (from what I understand, they already 'could' do this now, but why) seems like a possibility of breaking up the services one can reach in their region, but with no actual laws currently in place wouldn't this have already happened?

 

[Auditor55]

Since the whole thing is partisan politics, and the term neutrality was/is a joke, why the topic ? Just curious

This issue isn't just partisan politics. The problem you have here is that most people favor "net neutrality, since that is the case, the Prez should leave it alone. Just leave well enough alone.

 

[sholling]

I'm surprised to see such a political landmine of a thread on Audioholics, however Gene owns the site and I respect Gene and respect his absolute right to make an exception to the 'no political discussions' rule. Naturally being a reformed IT guy I have very strong opinions on this subject, however I will refrain from posting them on Audioholics because with the the strong opinions on both sides of this subject I see no reason to offend at least half of a group of people that I hold in very high regard, be they on the right side of the discussion (those that agree with me) or on the wrong side. In other words I don't think that this thread is going to end well.

 

[Wayde Robson]

I'm surprised to see such a political landmine of a thread on Audioholics,

I think Gene takes this particular issue seriously because it's the Internet and where he does business.

I hoped this issue would transcend politics, I know that's naive. But that's why I tried not to come off as Pro/Anti Obama or Trump, I didn't want to walk into that landmine. Both have had their problems, it's not black-or-white to me. Plus, I'm Canadian so I get to come off as totally impartial (but half my family is American so I'm not that impartial).

But @sholling I'd love to hear your thoughts. I did a lot of research into the technical aspect of what had been called 'throttling' on places like ArsTechnica, I respect that publication a lot, but I think they got it wrong when, around '14? They accused Comcast of purposely throttling Netflix. That was a big accusation that spread across the Internet and really added fuel to the Net Neutrality fire... it may have been completely false.

I won't try to explain how the Internet works, but there are algorithms prioritizing packets of data all the time throughout the infrastructure of what we call The Internet. It's possible (to simplify) that Netflix was the target of such algos to de-prioritize as it was likely one of the biggest data hogs ever seen at the time.

It's also possible that Netflix was used as a euphemism for YouPorn, people just didn't want to admit that they were getting cut-outs and slow-downs when trying to watch their porn of choice so they just said... video... err... Netflix, yeah, Netflix.

I believe it's true that data hogs might be the target of de-prioritization to ensure everything is running smoothly.

But to @pewternhrata - Yeah, the worst case scenarios of a non-net neutrality America won't involve your ISP getting that granular as to prioritize PSN or XBL, that takes work for them. They'll likely enter "partner deals" that don't count against your data for wireless with streaming services... possibly PSN or XBL? But they're unlikely to block it.

If Comcast seriously pulled a provable shenanigan that involved blocking areas of the Internet, you will be able to take it up with the FTC. It will STILL be illegal for an ISP to block areas of the Internet, unless they say in their contract that's the service you're subscribing to. I doubt Comcast would do that because they know the political pendulum is going to swing and if it swings too far in favour of net neutrality they will be toast and back to have to play Mother May I with the FCC every time they want to expand their fiber net work.

TITLE II Net neutrality was not good, there were a lot of ills. Sadly, it mostly not good for Comcast and Verizon and everyone thinks they're evil because they're big companies. But they perform a valuable service and I think we ought to try and make it easier to execute on their services. But "blocking" or "throttling" will be clear cases of impropriety for any ISP, they could get sued. And if 22-million emails to the FCC in support of net neutrality is any indication, Comcast will be on its best behavior in the foreseeable future... I hope.

Because net neutrality is so high profile, a provable case will be some liberal attorney's wet dream, it won't be hard to find someone taking the case pro-bono. In fact, I'd say there are snares being set as we speak, IT people who double as net neutrality activists will be monitoring this very closely and if they see unfair business practices they will spring the trap... IMHO...

But I'm interested in what @sholling thinks.

 

[randyb]

When my wife and I visited Canada several years ago, we were told free internet was available to citizens.....is that correct Wayde?

 

[theJman]

I may be a young millennial who hasn’t been around to see that many administrations, but I could have sworn learning in grade school and in college that throughout the history of this country, both parties came together and worked to achieve goals based on common sense.

Not sure there was ever a time in this countries history when both parties came together for much of anything. The two party system was based upon a checks-and-balances approach, but it quickly devolved into a vote-what-the-party-wants-you-to edict instead. This particular issue seems less about party lines though and more about big business and who they bought in Congress. The lobbying efforts of the industries who benefit from this bit of legislature are very influential because of how much they spend/whine/manipulate, so now the elected officials are beholden to them. Pai is simply their puppet, the mouthpiece that some moron thought deserved to be appointed to the position. Now our big business administration has what they want, and what typically happens in that case is the consumer/voter loses. I'm certainly no Obama fan but Net Neutrality is one of the few things, in my opinion, his administration accomplished that was actually good for the masses.

 

[pewternhrata]

Not sure there was ever a time in this countries history when both parties came together for much of anything. The two party system was based upon a checks-and-balances approach, but it quickly devolved into a vote-what-the-party-wants-you-to edict instead. This particular issue seems less about party lines though and more about big business and who they bought in Congress. The lobbying efforts of the industries who benefit from this bit of legislature are very influential because of how much they spend/whine/manipulate, so now the elected officials are beholden to them. Pai is simply their puppet, the mouthpiece that some moron thought deserved to be appointed to the position. Now our big business administration has what they want, and what typically happens in that case is the consumer/voter loses. I'm certainly no Obama fan but Net Neutrality is one of the few things, in my opinion, his administration accomplished that was actually good for the masses.

Even Obama didn't seem to do too much about it, old policies 're wording, a little 'good' but he left it up to the next fool in line to deal with, just like any president has done. Even the pipeline fiasco was left for someone else to deal with. Government is all buckled up just as bad as its always been. Media is full of 'experts' with 'facts' that consist of nothing more than opinions.

 

[Wayde Robson]

When my wife and I visited Canada several years ago, we were told free internet was available to citizens.....is that correct Wayde?

I don't know about "free" Internet, I'm not sure how that would be managed. Anyone can go to most public libraries and get free access to Internet, but that's a city thing, I'm it's the same in the US.

There are cities, like where I work, Waterloo, Ontario that has free and open wi-fi downtown. Anyone can access it. But there are cities in the US that do the same, I think SF is one. Wireless Internet comes from cell-phone carriers the same as the US. But in Canada, wireless is more expensive than anywhere in the world (when last I checked several years ago that stat was true but it's become only slightly more reasonable here so it may not be accurate anymore).

Hard wired ISP Internet to your home is the same as the US, you pay a monthly fee. Our Rogers is the same as your Comcast, both companies bought up a former Cable TV giant called McLean-Hunter that is actually a Canadian company that expanded into the US, that's how I came to live in the US for a good part of my life, my dad was an engineer for MH. MH in the US became Comcast and in Canada it became Rogers.

I'd have to say, no, it's not true that it's free. If such a deal were mandated by the government of Canada it would be left to the provinces to deploy, just like our health care. We don't have a national health care plan, we have a mandate carried out by each province with varying degrees of success and problems.

But hey, you never know... there might be cities or provinces that offer free Internet, but not Ontario at least not to my knowledge.

Hope you enjoyed your visit in Canada, come again

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Let me just leave these two videos, one is original from 2014 and one is recent.
Maybe it could explain in more approachable fashion why we desperately need Net Neutrality to stay

 

[shadyJ]

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.

 

[pewternhrata]

Unfortunately its more of greedy a** companies than anything else, forces more unnecessary regulations that get pawned off to the govt to take control over. We rely on businesses to sell us commodities, yet tell me one company in any field that doesn't take advantage of consumers...ill wait. I'll also wait for a president, regardless of party, who actually gives 2cents.
Obama did what he wanted, not what he could, Hillary would have done the same as will Trump and then after. Unless individuals choose to grow up and provide fair business practices nothing will change, but that's an impossible feat.

 

[Ponzio]

Thanks to Gene for bringing this to everyone's attention. This is very similar to when the US gov sold off the former TV broadband frequencies for a song and a dance which are now being used for cellular service and nary a complaint. It’s a utility and if not checked will just be another unwanted hand (Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc.) in ur pocket.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Obama did what he wanted, not what he could

Wrong, he, or more accurately Wheeler, did what he could, not what he wanted. He tried to keep Big Telco not too upset with him, this is why Wireless was excluded from Title II entirely.

Unless individuals choose to grow up and provide fair business practices nothing will change, but that's an impossible feat.

fair business practices don't grow on trees, only healthy competition could create them. Same ISP competition which is nearly impossible to provide at large scale. Even company with deep pockets like Google tried hard and in the end practically gave up in face of some of same barriers, issues and changeless any upcoming ISP would face.

So until we do have ISP competition and by that I mean more than one ISP which could provide usable 25mbs download with low latency (ie. that excludes fixed 4g wireless) - regulate we must and should.

Only "easy" fix to create isp competition is for government is too grow some serious balls, go in to lengthy legal battle (backed by iron clad laws supported by bipartisan senate/house) and do what UK did - isp last mile decoupling:

This is from almost 8 years old:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/03/uk-regulators-officially-mock-us-over-isp-competition/

Country where I used to live before US, had long time monopoly for one government supported telco for making international calls. Result: it was "normal" for $4-$5 (US) per minute cost calls to most counties. Very rapidly as government new law said to international services must be separated from your landline voice service and allowed competition, now price to call to most developed countries stands around 2-3c (US cent) per minute or even free if one is more creative.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-canada-net-neutrality-party-politics-fcc-crtc-fight-1.4447558