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

[Steve81]

@herbu

Judging by your posts, like this snippet:

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.

I don't think you're on the same page with the rest of us. That's not what Net Neutrality is about.

The problem is this:
We use ISPs for access to the internet. Should ISPs then be able to turn around, and using the direct access they have to their subscriber base as leverage, charge third parties for access to those subscribers under pain of face throttling or potentially even blocking content?

What are the implications that has for other businesses, many of which operate in part if not in whole over the internet?

Is that what we as customers have signed up for? For ISPs to act as our gatekeepers by using our business as leverage against other companies?

What stops ISPs (many of which also function as cable companies) from throttling competitors like Netflix and Hulu to the point of being unusable, and how does that conflict with anti-competition laws?

 

[herbu]

First, thank you guys for the civil discussion. "Disagree" I can understand. "Dumb" is just... well, dumb. Unless, of course...

Now, please continue with my education. I'll use this analogy.
I have DISH satellite TV. If I want FOX News, I pay DISH a fee for that channel. (hahahahaha!!!) And FOX News pays DISH a fee to offer their channel. It is not uncommon to see warnings that DISH is going to stop showing FN because of contract disputes. DISH always says FN won't pay them enough, and FN says DISH is asking too much. Sometimes the issue is resolved before the blackout. Sometimes a blackout can last for weeks.

I understand it is the same with Direct TV and Cable. Except for some local OTA channels, there is no other choice. In my case, OTA is not available and cable is not offered, so DISH and Direct are my only choices. I've used both, and settled on the one that seems to give me the fewest problems.

So should there be a law that regulates the contract between channel and satellite provider? Without a law, I may not be able to watch FOX News. And gawd amighty, what if they take Rush away?!?!?

How is Netflix and the ISP different? I don't know about all the lawsuits referenced, but are they related to movies and games or critical business applications?

BTW, how are y'alls 401s doing? Oh, and enjoy your tax cuts.

 

[Gunny]

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.

In point of fact, they couldn't if they wanted to as no single ISP can guarantee or control overall Internet performance. you MAY get advertised speeds connecting directly to their Points of Presence but almost never from end to end.

 

[Gunny]

BTW, how are y'alls 401s doing? Oh, and enjoy your tax cuts.

Sounds like your opinions are based on political leanings, which we all know to be intractable for the vast majority of us, so probably no point in further debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they can sometimes get in the way of facts.

 

[pewternhrata]

Interesting as I read through, the comments on speeds that isps offer. I wanted faster streaming so I bumped up my speed for a premium package. So with net neutrality I WAS paying a premium for streaming services, if I didn't care about streaming I could lower my package to a cheaper plan. It's a change in wording. With neutrality in place we had plans advertised for streaming or general use. Without neutrality we will have plans for Netflix...o snap, streaming...or general browsing...this topic is getting hysterical, and irrational.

 

[Steve81]

I have DISH satellite TV. If I want FOX News, I pay DISH a fee for that channel. (hahahahaha!!!) And FOX News pays DISH a fee to offer their channel.

I doubt Fox is paying Dish anything, this being a fairly recent example of such a dispute:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/11/21/dish-network-drops-cbs-channels-in-some-markets.html

CBS and Dish traded blame for the standoff. CBS said Dish was punishing its subscribers instead of negotiating fair prices for content it carries. Dish said CBS wanted Dish customers to pay more for programming that is declining in viewership and free over the air.

How is Netflix and the ISP different?

The biggest difference is what the consumer is paying for and can reasonably expect to receive. With cable/DISH, you're paying for a package of channels. If one channel decides to play hardball and jack up their rates 10x, that's something reasonably hedged against in a subscriber agreement, and DISH can either remove it from their packages going forward, or pony up.

An ISP is just that: an internet service provider. They aren't advertising and selling you access to a package of websites, or full speed access to such a package and throttling the rest. They're advertising and (at least ostensibly) selling you access to the internet at a particular speed (and data cap in the case of most wireless plans). As such, it seems problematic for them to start artificially throttling sites they don't like (read:competitors) or those who don't want to pay some sort of internet toll to get unfettered access to the ISPs subscribers.

 

[Gunny]

Technically not a breech of contract, but BOA would be in deep poop either way.

Steve - You're kidding, right? BOA and all of the other mega banks have been doing exactly what you describe for decades. It's unethical perhaps [especially in the case of seniors] but in no way illegal. The customer is responsible because they [effectively] signed a contract without first reading it.

 

[Steve81]

Steve - You're kidding, right? BOA and all of the other mega banks have been doing exactly what you describe for decades. It's unethical perhaps [especially in the case of seniors] but in no way illegal. The customer is responsible because they [effectively] signed a contract without first reading it.

No I'm not kidding. False / deceptive advertising is very much illegal. Ask the FTC and CFPB among others:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-moneytree-deceptive-advertising-and-collection-practices/

Washington, D.C. – Today the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) took action against Moneytree, Inc., a financial services company that offers payday loans and check-cashing services, for misleading consumers with deceptive online advertisements and collections letters. The company also made unauthorized electronic transfers from consumers’ bank accounts. The CFPB has ordered the company to cease its illegal conduct, provide $255,000 in refunds to consumers, and pay a civil penalty of $250,000.

“Consumers deserve honesty and transparency from the financial institutions they rely on,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Moneytree’s practices meant consumers were making decisions based on false and deceptive information, and today’s action will give the company’s customers the redress they are owed.”

The CFPB also had something to say to BOA a couple years back to the tune of 700+ million:
https://www.truthinadvertising.org/bank-america-pay-727-million-deceptive-marketing-unfair-billing/

One might question just how effectively the law is enforced, but the laws do exist.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

First, thank you guys for the civil discussion. "Disagree" I can understand. "Dumb" is just... well, dumb. Unless, of course...

Now, please continue with my education. I'll use this analogy.
I have DISH satellite TV. If I want FOX News, I pay DISH a fee for that channel. (hahahahaha!!!) And FOX News pays DISH a fee to offer their channel. It is not uncommon to see warnings that DISH is going to stop showing FN because of contract disputes. DISH always says FN won't pay them enough, and FN says DISH is asking too much. Sometimes the issue is resolved before the blackout. Sometimes a blackout can last for weeks.

I understand it is the same with Direct TV and Cable. Except for some local OTA channels, there is no other choice. In my case, OTA is not available and cable is not offered, so DISH and Direct are my only choices. I've used both, and settled on the one that seems to give me the fewest problems.

So should there be a law that regulates the contract between channel and satellite provider? Without a law, I may not be able to watch FOX News. And gawd amighty, what if they take Rush away?!?!?

How is Netflix and the ISP different? I don't know about all the lawsuits referenced, but are they related to movies and games or critical business applications?

BTW, how are y'alls 401s doing? Oh, and enjoy your tax cuts.

By now I think a I log could learn more than you do, and about them "tax cuts":
https://www.consumerreports.org/taxes/new-tax-bills-winners-and-losers/

I take that you are apparently in 600k+/year category if you're so excited about these "tax cuts".

• All of us, by 2026. Tax breaks for individuals would mostly expire. An analysis of an earlier Senate bill draft by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation found that by 2019, taxpayers making $30,000 or less would pay more, as a group, than they do now. By 2025, the last year in which the bill’s measures would be in place, only those making $1 million or more would still be paying less in taxes. The following year, all taxpayers would pay more than we would pay if the current tax structure stayed the same.

 

[herbu]

By now I think a I log could learn more than you do, and about them "tax cuts":
https://www.consumerreports.org/taxes/new-tax-bills-winners-and-losers/

I take that you are apparently in 600k+/year category if you're so excited about these "tax cuts".

BSA, the Consumer Reports article is laughable. Literally. I laughed all the way through it. The best thing to do here is wait and see. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that 9 out of 10 people here will never admit the tax cut was good. I've been here long enough to know my audience.

 

[herbu]

I doubt Fox is paying Dish anything

Hahahaha! I just used Fox as an example for fun. Actually, I don't remember Fox ever involved in one of these disputes. It's always the liberal networks... ABC, CBS, NBC, or those channels owned by Disney. Coincidence? I have no idea.

If one channel decides to play hardball and jack up their rates 10x, that's something reasonably hedged against in a subscriber agreement

So, if my ISP hedged against their throttling in my contract, then it would be ok? I think the law requires them to do that now.

Sorry, but you know I'm slow. Still don't understand.

 

[herbu]

Sounds like your opinions are based on political leanings, which we all know to be intractable for the vast majority of us, so probably no point in further debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they can sometimes get in the way of facts.

So because I have political leanings, all my opinions are based on them? That immediately brings 2 things to mind.
1) An FBI agent who supports Hillary can not separate his leanings from his job.
2) Gene should shut down this forum because every opinion is colored and biased.
Sad.
Sorry, thought of another thing.
3) Funny how only conservative leanings get in the way of facts.

 

[TheWarrior]

BSA, the Consumer Reports article is laughable. Literally. I laughed all the way through it. The best thing to do here is wait and see. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that 9 out of 10 people here will never admit the tax cut was good. I've been here long enough to know my audience.

This is an example of a Fact Resistant Human.

Basic math eludes these people as a 1.5 Trillion Dollar deficit means the Federal Government will be unable to function and we will be obligated to slash assistance programs to stay on budget.

But these Fact Resistant Humans will continue to taut their superior information sources while undermining their own words with poor grammar and sentence structure, which is not conducive to intelligent discussion.

Fact Resistant Humans are incapable of staying on topic and use false equivalencies to convey their poorly constructed points.

Worst of all, they will always live in a false state of security and will continue to vote against their own interests, because of 'her emails'.

3) Funny how only conservative leanings get in the way of facts.

I'm not sure you've stated a single fact in this entire discussion.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

BSA, the Consumer Reports article is laughable. Literally. I laughed all the way through it. The best thing to do here is wait and see. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that 9 out of 10 people here will never admit the tax cut was good. I've been here long enough to know my audience.

And I bet that "wait and see" and/or "give him a chance" are two worst possible ideas humanity could be ever duped thinking into.
Article is a summary of FACTS. If you reject reality, it's your choice of course. Lets just not confuse your distorted view of reality with facts. "Tax Breaks" - Some people will benefit from it, in long term the most of benefits will be limited to high net worth people and people who get most of their income directly from investing only.

 

[Steve81]

So, if my ISP hedged against their throttling in my contract, then it would be ok? I think the law requires them to do that now.

It's not just a matter of the contract, the advertising also matters. I mean lets face it, markets don't work properly if businesses are actively deceiving consumers.

In your Dish example, if Fox and Dish can't come to an agreement, can Dish continue to advertise Fox channels as part of their packages going forward? Of course not. For a more apples to apples comparison, supposing they reached an agreement that Fox channels could only be broadcast in SD instead of HD, could Dish still advertise that they offer Fox in HD? Again, no. So if an ISP advertises a 25Mbps internet connection, but then in secret decides to artificially throttle numerous popular websites down to 5Mbps, that's also a problem.

The market solution to that issue is that the ISP needs to give an up front, true representation of its product, thereby letting consumers vote with their wallets. That's still imperfect given the reality of enforced monopolies at the municipal level in many areas, but that deals with one legal issue in any event.

The next legal question: is it anti-competitive behavior to artificially throttle a website that offers products and services that compete with your own? Services like Netflix and Hulu very obviously compete with the video services offered by cable companies, but they are reliant on ISPs to reach their client base. How does that work? Who comes up with an equitable toll that doesn't simply drive those companies out of business, given the obvious incentive to do so?

As a final thought for this post, from a government standpoint, it's still an open question of what policy works best for the economy as a whole. The internet is a critical part of the 21st century infrastructure, and very clearly has an impact on interstate commerce, so its well within the scope of powers afforded to the federal government to regulate. You know, just like they regulate the food you eat, the guns you can buy, the health care you can receive, etc.

 

[Darenwh]

The issue that many of you seem to not understand is that when you purchase service from a provider you purchase a speed from your access point to the entry into their network. Yes, Joe's ISP can sell you a 2 Gb/s hop from your home to their office and then have a dialup connection from their office to the real internet and as long as you have that 2 Gb/s connection working to their office.

Now, if he has a 10 Tb/s connection to the internet and you are trying to stream a 4K HDR program but so are a couple hundred other users all trying to stream 4K HDR programs to their TV's, and, incidentally, several of them have more than one TV in the house as well as several tablets, etc... all streaming or doing other things that take up heavy amounts of bandwidth. You will still have issues due to his back haul limits.

So Joe decides he needs to increase his back haul capacity, doubling it knowing that in a few years he will need to double or triple it again. So who pays for the back haul capacity increase? Does Joe pay for it and eat the loss of profits? Should he increase how much he charges all subscribers, even those who do not stream multiple 4K programs while running high bandwidth games and other apps from their home? Or do you charge Netflix for the very large amount of data they are trying to force over the network (at times streaming video can be 80%+ of traffic over the network)? Why not charge the company that is using the most back haul and allow them to charge users who are using the service the most more money to cover their costs? This would distribute the cost according to the use of the company and people using that companies service.

Where does the money come from? Don't say that companies have unlimited capacity because that is not true. Even the ISP's and big telecom companies have to keep increasing capacity to keep up with demand.

 

[Ponzio]

Where does the money come from? Don't say that companies have unlimited capacity because that is not true. Even the ISP's and big telecom companies have to keep increasing capacity to keep up with demand.

And u truly believe they don't pass on those costs to the consumer? I worked in the telecom industry for over 35 years and I can assure that those costs were always passed on to the customer, be they residential or business and a profit was included in those costs. To believe otherwise is just naivete.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Yes, the cost are 100% passed to consumer, but with IP traffic cost dropping each year, then was last time your internet bill got cheaper?
Besides, nn has nothing to do with any of that. Even with nn rules in place, nothing prevented ISP from doing metered or capd service.
Many ISPs already has them.

 

[Steve81]

The issue that many of you seem to not understand is that when you purchase service from a provider you purchase a speed from your access point to the entry into their network. Yes, Joe's ISP can sell you a 2 Gb/s hop from your home to their office and then have a dialup connection from their office to the real internet and as long as you have that 2 Gb/s connection working to their office.

Sounds like a fantastic business plan. Try that out and let me know how it works for you

So who pays for the back haul capacity increase? Does Joe pay for it and eat the loss of profits?

That's not "eating the loss of profits", it's reinvesting those profits into your business to make it better and more competitive going forward. To put it another way: Joe isn't burning the money and simply making it vanish. He's buying more assets, which adds to the company's balance sheet, and improves his company in the process.

Should he increase how much he charges all subscribers, even those who do not stream multiple 4K programs while running high bandwidth games and other apps from their home?

Why would he need to? Joe can figure out who is going to use the most bandwidth because...wait for it...those are the people that are going to sign up to use the most bandwidth. Joe can then charge those people higher rates as needed to cover his increased costs of operating/investment, while still offering low cost plans to Grandma and Grandpa Smith who only use the internet to argue on a couple forums.

 

[Gunny]

So because I have political leanings, all my opinions are based on them? That immediately brings 2 things to mind.
1) An FBI agent who supports Hillary can not separate his leanings from his job.
2) Gene should shut down this forum because every opinion is colored and biased.
Sad.
Sorry, thought of another thing.
3) Funny how only conservative leanings get in the way of facts.

No. I probably should have explained my comments further. We all have "political leanings." My belief aligns with the philosophy that there are at least two sides to any issue and that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I didn't mean to attack your views, only to point out that your opinions on this issue were clearly falling in line with them, just as my views sometimes fall in line with my own political leanings. The problem is, things just aren't always that tidy. I've read some of your other material so I know you are intelligent and informed as it applies to our common hobby of Home Theater. I do not [respectfully] believe you understand Internet technology and practices. I build and support computer networks for a living which helps to keep my political leanings honest in this area.

We don't need a country [or world] where everyone agrees. Different views [as long as they are informed views] serve as the best checks and balances system any free society could ever have. No person or "side" can know everything. The problem arises when one becomes so attached to their views that they ignore anything that doesn't support the outcome they already want.