no more open internet :'( sad day in history

[drrich2]

To define broadband internet as a public utility brings to mind a key difference in how it functions from a cost & usage perspective compared to, say, electricity.

The power company provides us electricity. Those of us who use more, pay more. The electric company (sort of a producer and distributor in one) makes more profit from higher users, which helps fund the infrastructure, and the 'cost per use' model discourages excessive use & strain on the infrastructure.

With broadband internet, the producer (content owner/licenser) and distributor (ISPs) are separate. For historical and practical reasons, the model has shifted heavily to flat fee unlimited access - 'all-you-can-eat buffet internet.' But there's limited bandwidth; this is especially true with cellular signals (not everyone in a city can watch a 4K video on their smart phone via cellular signal at once!), but to a lesser extent with wired providers (i.e. Cable & DSL).

From the ISP's perspective, there's limited infrastructure to provide a service at a flat fee. All is well for awhile. Then they get customer complaints about slow down and bad service. Turns out people are streaming Netflix & other high-def. video providers. It will cost the ISP to build out their system and meet the increased need. But in a few years, will people stream 8K video? The ISP can start to feel like Netflix's 'b**ch,' so to speak, and they want a cut.

With other public utilities, such as electricity or water, the end user pays more for more use. That funds infrastructure. With the internet, 'pay for usage' is politically untenable. If ISP's switched to a 'pay for use' model, there'd be complaints of the 'haves vs. have-nots' (people with more money having an advantage in a free society).

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from having the leverage to make money off content providers. Whether society has a 'moral right' to do that, what the ISPs would do with that extra profit (e.g.: going to share holders vs. going to infrastructure build-out), what this would do to pricing at low to mid-tier consumer monthly access rates, those things aren't so clear. Because I don't know these answers, net neutrality is a hard issue for me to decide, but as a conservative, I'm not enthused at regulating without clear need.

Richard.

 

[Diver0001]

Ever spent serious time in China and enjoyed the internet there?

Yes, I have spent serous time in China -- both as a tourist and for my work. It's far and away one of my favorite countries on Earth to be. I would move to China tomorrow if I had the chance. I like it that much.

That said, government regulation has turned the internet there into a wasteland of "thou shalt not <fill in the blank>". It's disastrous how much Chinese enterprise is being held back by the heavy hand of regulation. Moreover that regulation is frequently based on moral norms and values. The regulations are often not intended to curb abuses of (cartel) power or to to protect China from foreign meddling... they literally turn off certain websites because someone in government believes that Chinese people should be morally "above" viewing the content. The "walking dead" is one example You can't watch that in China. You can't "Google" anything in China because Google is blocked... etc etc. There are a vast number of sites that are simply blocked

I don't want to mention porn again because it triggered you the first time but it is illustrative of my point here.

Given how many people there are in China (and how many more men than women they have > 33 million with NO chance of ever finding a relationship) there *should* be a healthy market for sex related internet content there.... but you'll need a pick-axe and dynamite to find a picture of a naked woman online in China because the government wants that issue swept under the carpet.

... AND... THAT is the end-game in Net neutrality. If you are following my thoughts here then you will see that China has a HIGH level of "Net Neutrality".

If the government forces the ISP's into the role of a utilities company and then further regulates what that utility should be allowed to do (and forbidden from doing) then THAT is what we'll have. We will have government bureaucrats deciding if you are allowed to watch the "Walking Dead" or if you should be forced to watch propaganda instead. THIS is the end-game in net neutrality.

A truly open internet can only be achieved if the government stays out of it. The American Government seems to be recognizing that.

I should say here that I don't like Trump and the first thing I do every morning when I wake up is open the CNN app in the desperate hope that he resigned during the night..... but on this one issue... the issue of deregulation where the "problem" of cartel forming or economic abuse is not evident, is something (maybe the only thing) very positive about this administration.

R..

 

[guruboy]

If you are following my thoughts here then you will see that China has a HIGH level of "Net Neutrality".

LOL

 

[Schwob]

@drrich2
Good points. No new insights but good points. I understand your reasoning for why maybe a pay for us ISP model is maybe politically possible. Maybe. But more for political convenience than actual impossibility. Personally, I would love to pay for usage... or for bandwidth... especially if I then get it guaranteed. Like power 110V power all the time, not just 70 or 15V some of the time.... And if I pay for 200 Amp service instead if 200 or if I pay for thre phase current.... then I get that. I not, I don't. The wonderful thing is, I may pay for a hookup and maybe a monthly fixed fee, but I do pay for actual usage... No matter how big my pipline is, if I do not use it for 3 weeks, I do not pay for usage... I would much lije that...

Do people get power and water and gas for free? Never have it turned off if not paid? Not really or? Should they get it for free? Another debate. Should it be subsidised up to a certain usage level? Another debate... But surely, whatever solutions work there could be made to work for data streams as well - or? If not, why not?

Yep, I do fully understand that currently ISPs are being, likely quite unfairly put in position of giving Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Google etc. a pretty free ride and that's not right. But I surely do not want my ISP deciding what I can easily do and access with my internet connection and what will / might be a problem down the road. One way or another, a hookup fee and pay for bandwidth x time actually used is the only fair and "neutral" way I can see. Just like a utility. All else, I think, is trouble - sooner or later...

 

[Schwob]

A truly open internet can only be achieved if the government stays out of it. The American Government seems to be recognizing that.

About your China comments:
Mine were specific to the internet policy (and by extension general censorship and limits permissible opinions... etc.) Not to the people or the country. Have a lot to like about them / it myself and some deeper connections... Not how country, resources or people are exploited, not where I think politics will inevitably drive our differing "powerspheres" but much else.
Amyway, without diving further into that, I think we might be on a rather similar page there... and as you noted yourself, using the internet there as a tool works great only if within the permitted confines... that was the point. I don't care if such confines come from a regime, authoritarian or democratic or from powerful corporate interests. Makes no differemce if the aim is to not be such confined.

So, in that sense, if there was a way to let ISPs provide their service at a fair price, w/o giving them, the government, anyone a say what for the data stream is used (within the realm of legality), that would be the only good way to me. To me that pretty much means an ISP needs to be a utility and who uses the service more needs to pay more...

 

[ljpm]

If we applied the laws of Net Neutrality to other industries, I believe it becomes painfully obvious that it's incredibly flawed. Let's apply it to shipping.

With Shipping Neutrality, all mail has to take the same amount of time to deliver. Short distance? Long distance? International? It all must take the same amount of time. That's being neutral. Well, what if you want to pay more for overnight delivery? Too bad. What if you want to include shipping in the cost of the item? Too bad, that's favoritism. Amazon Prime is now illegal.

Your analogy is flawed. Consider the example provided in the John Oliver video with ISIS. The major cellular providers blocked google from use on their networks. If we use the shipping neutrality analogy this would be akin to the internet providers owning the tucks. These companies also sell certain products, call them widgets. A new company comes along and produces a better widget at a better price but being a small company, or just not having their own delivery system, must rely upon an existing delivery system, the trucking companies mentioned above. Now with trucking neutrality the trucking companies would be prevented from 1. not shipping the new widget at all and 2. greatly extending the shipping time to the point people would refuse to by the new and better widget. The argument that providers wouldn't do this is not valid since they did do it. They refused to allow google pay on their networks. They even took it to court where they won. Hence type II, and therefore net neutrality, to force them to play fair.

 

[drbill]

Here on Catalina we struggle with essentially one ISP, Catalina Broadband, whose basic 5/1 service is $50/month. Despite being called Broadband, I don't think they offer a single level of service that meets the FCC definition. Last week at my son's house he was getting nearly 400 Mbps!

 

[ljpm]

I guess what you could add is that what you are saying is complete and utter bull ****.

There are only two issues the government is trying to regulate with Net Neutrality

1) who actually profits from the money you pay?
and
2) how many stakeholders does it take to make a copyright party?

On the first point, content providers believe they should be the ones to profit from their content. ISP's (Verizon started it but it was bound to happen) wanted to get their fingers into the batter. The government sided on the point of view (well lobbied by content providers) that ISP's should basically be seen as utility companies and not as content providers.

On the second point, if ISP's and content providers were not "pigeon holed" to some extent then the complex puzzle surrounding copyright law would never reach a conclusion because the big players would be able to point their fingers at the other guys. By taking ISP's off the list of stake holders, then they can contain the copyright discussion to the role of content providers. This is clever chess, in my book. Divide and conquer.

For consumers, nothing AT ALL changes. You pay your money, you watch your netfix. It's that simple. The ENTIRE discussion about net neutrality has no impact whatsoever with respect to the actual delivery of internet service to your living room. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors to get people to pick sides in a discussion that doesn't even involve them!

R..

Not so sure.
I see net neutrality more of a way to ensure ISP (the delivery of content) stays separate from production of content. ISP's are entitled to produce content they are just prevented from using their monopoly (whether partial or complete) to unfairly favor their own content.

Consider a situation where in Verizon creates a NetFlix type service. They offer it on there their ISP customers. But it sucks. It costs more then NetFlix and it has only half the content. So, without net neutrality, Verizon simply stops allowing NetFlix on their ISP, or they slow it down so much that you can't really watch anything on it. This is what Net Neutrality is preventing.

 

[ljpm]

My apologies. I could have said "America's Got Talent" videos instead and it would have come across differently. The principle is the same. I actually thought this thread was in the "Pub", which has a more "base" level of discourse. I was looking for an example that would resonate with the readers I thought I was addressing but clearly the audience was not what I expected it to be.

R..

Hey now, don't be dissin' my "America's got Talent" videos. lol

 

[ljpm]

To define broadband internet as a public utility brings to mind a key difference in how it functions from a cost & usage perspective compared to, say, electricity.

The power company provides us electricity. Those of us who use more, pay more. The electric company (sort of a producer and distributor in one) makes more profit from higher users, which helps fund the infrastructure, and the 'cost per use' model discourages excessive use & strain on the infrastructure.

With broadband internet, the producer (content owner/licenser) and distributor (ISPs) are separate. For historical and practical reasons, the model has shifted heavily to flat fee unlimited access - 'all-you-can-eat buffet internet.' But there's limited bandwidth; this is especially true with cellular signals (not everyone in a city can watch a 4K video on their smart phone via cellular signal at once!), but to a lesser extent with wired providers (i.e. Cable & DSL).

From the ISP's perspective, there's limited infrastructure to provide a service at a flat fee. All is well for awhile. Then they get customer complaints about slow down and bad service. Turns out people are streaming Netflix & other high-def. video providers. It will cost the ISP to build out their system and meet the increased need. But in a few years, will people stream 8K video? The ISP can start to feel like Netflix's 'b**ch,' so to speak, and they want a cut.

With other public utilities, such as electricity or water, the end user pays more for more use. That funds infrastructure. With the internet, 'pay for usage' is politically untenable. If ISP's switched to a 'pay for use' model, there'd be complaints of the 'haves vs. have-nots' (people with more money having an advantage in a free society).

Net neutrality prevents the ISPs from having the leverage to make money off content providers. Whether society has a 'moral right' to do that, what the ISPs would do with that extra profit (e.g.: going to share holders vs. going to infrastructure build-out), what this would do to pricing at low to mid-tier consumer monthly access rates, those things aren't so clear. Because I don't know these answers, net neutrality is a hard issue for me to decide, but as a conservative, I'm not enthused at regulating without clear need.

Richard.

Very good argument. I don't know enough about the ISP business model to answer that. One possible solution/answer: On my internet I have a rather large download limit and speed. I have a very small upload limit. Most consumers will have a very little uploads. I do not know what ISP's charge for supper fast upload and if this is also based on usage. That may be a solution. Anyone have any info on that part of the ISP business.