Net Neutrality

[Florida173]

There has been a lot of discussion on this topic lately and thought it would be a good idea on getting any differences of opinions or insights on people believe it has benefited them in the last two years compared to the past 20 years.

I believe I am the only one out there that thinks that the new proposal to replace Net Neutrality has some positive suggestions, and concerns on internet remaining in a title 2 status.

The proposal is in its Final Draft and it brings up some interesting points. I'd suggest taking a look around page 149 and on for things related to transparency and throttling.

The internet and the rest of the typical Reddit community are pretty adamant on the idea that Net Neutrality is the greatest thing ever. Even though it has only been around for the past two years. Most of the memes and regular talking points don't take into account the actual proposal, just hypotheticals on what would happen if there were no system in place to protect the consumer.

I can definitely say that I am glad I don't have comcast though. Seems most of the hate is on that specific provider, but all the other valid concerns from what providers were doing previously are substantiated in the proposal.

Below are a few passages I find most interesting.

259. We find the no-blocking and no-throttling rules are unnecessary to prevent the harms that they were intended to thwart. We find that the transparency rule we adopt today—coupled with our enforcement authority and with FTC enforcement of ISP commitments, antitrust law, consumer expectations, and ISP incentives—will be sufficient to prevent these harms, particularly given the consensus against blocking practices, as reflected in the scarcity of actual cases of such blocking.

260. Transparency rule. As discussed above, the transparency rule we adopt, combined with antitrust and consumer protection laws, obviate the need for conduct rules by achieving comparable benefits at lower cost. In addition, several factors specific to blocking and throttling will work to prevent the potential harms that could be caused by blocking and throttling. First, most attempts by ISPs to block or throttle content will likely be met with a fierce consumer backlash. As one commenter explains, such blocking or throttling is “unlikely to occur, because it must be sufficiently blatant to be of any benefit to the ISP, that [it] only increases the likelihood of getting caught.” Second, numerous ISPs, including the four largest fixed ISPs, have publicly committed not to block or throttle the content that consumers choose.The transparency rule will ensure that ISPs reveal any deviation from these commitments to the public, and addresses commenter concerns that consumers will not understand the source of any blocking or throttling. Violations of the transparency rule will be subject to our enforcement authority. Furthermore, the FTC possesses the authority to enforce these commitments, as it did in TracFone. Third, the antitrust laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct, and to the extent blocking or throttling by an ISP may constitute such conduct, the existence of these laws likely deters potentially anticompetitive conduct. Finally, ISPs have long-term incentives to preserve Internet openness, which creates demand for the Internet access service that they provide.

261. Consensus against blocking and throttling. We emphasize once again that we do not support blocking lawful content, consistent with long-standing Commission policy. The potential consequences of blocking or throttling lawful content on the Internet ecosystem are well-documented in the record and in Commission precedent. Stakeholders from across the Internet ecosystem oppose the blocking and throttling of lawful content, including ISPs, public interest groups, edge providers, other content producers, network equipment manufacturers, and other businesses and individuals who use the Internet. This consensus is among the reasons that there is scant evidence that end users, under different legal frameworks, have been prevented by blocking or throttling from accessing the content of their choosing. It also is among the reasons why providers have voluntarily abided by no blocking practices even during periods where they were not legally required to do so. As to free expression in particular, we note that none of the actual incidents discussed in the Title II Order squarely implicated free speech. If anything, recent evidence suggests that hosting services, social media platforms, edge providers, and other providers of virtual Internet infrastructure are more likely to block content on viewpoint grounds.

262. Additionally, as urged by the prior Commission when defending the Title II Order, and as confirmed in the concurrence in the denial of rehearing en banc by the two judges in the majority in USTelecom, the Title II Order allows ISPs to offer curated services, which would allow ISPs to escape the reach of the Title II Order and to filter content on viewpoint grounds.In practice, the Title II Order “deregulates curated Internet access relative to conventional Internet access [and] may induce ISPs to filter content more often,” rendering the no-blocking and no-throttling rules ineffectual as long as an ISP disclosed it was offering curated services. The curated services exemption arising from the Title II Order confirms our judgment that transparency requirements, rather than conduct rules, are the most effective means of preserving Internet openness.

 

[Florida173]

 

[AWP]

Given my job I should know more about this, but my shallow observations:

- Throttling bandwidth or restricting websites shouldn't occur, not ever. Especially if...
- ...there are alternatives in a market. Sadly for many areas this isn't an option. At best in some markets you have 2 or 3 with questionable practices. A better market would guard against an ISP doing dumb things to the consumer.

Those are my two main concerns given how little I know about the topic. Like many, it has become heavily polarized in the last year.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

A buddy who works for CenturyLink explained it to me like this:

The way it is now, Comcast (or whomever) offer the same speed for any website you want to visit. Under the new rules, Comcast could treat the internet like Cable TV. You want to visit ESPN.com for free? Fine. You want to visit ESPN.com at blazing speeds so your videos do not lag? $4.99 per month please! Fuck that.

 

[The Hate Ape]

Seems like the *find a better term for liberal* "Feels Police" got this one right; I've seen enough of the presented positives on both sides to believe that this is a crockpot filled with turds set on high.

*admin edit
"edited for mod-approval/deletion"

 

[Gunz]

The ACLU is decidedly and characteristically against net neutrality, so take this with a grain of salt...but they have a pretty even track record when it comes to the 1st Amendment.

What Is Net Neutrality?

 

[The Hate Ape]

I had never heard of the ACLU but my first impression was that the financial motivations exceeded their represented ideology.

 

[Florida173]

 

[The Hate Ape]

So I rescind my previous statement - the end of Net Neutrality is actually a good thing and the title itself is extremely misleading. The regulation's existence spans back far, far into the early internet era (2015) and basically imposed socialist style regulation of internet. There was absolutely a reason the supreme court continued to strike down "Neutrality" proposals since the early 2000s. The repeal of this regulation, removes the government's foothold in the internet - this will increase competitive markets, decrease prices and improve content availability.

 

[Ranger Psych]

except that industry has already flat out done what the concerns are..

 

[Salt USMC]

Yup. One of the big movers behind NN rules was when Comcast began throttling Netflix bandwidth to its customers back in 2014. If you live an area of high saturation then that's not always a problem - you can move on to another provider. But what about those areas that only have two or three providers, or even just a single provider? You can actually check them out here: Broadband Map - Number of Providers - National Broadband Map

See how much of the US is underserved? A provider like Comcast can move in and gouge consumers with absolutely no recourse. Opposing net neutrality requires you to trust that these large telecoms will act in good faith and provide a good cost-to-performance ratio which, if you've dealt with telecoms for any length of time, they definitely aren't known for. They exhibit rent-seeking behavior and will do their utmost to provide the worst service they can get away with at the greatest cost - even in the face of competition!

Now, I'm not being a chicken little about the whole situation and saying that the internet will be brought to its knees now that NN has been repealed, but we shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking that the market is going to solve this problem.

 

[amlove21]

The one thing I am hoping for out of all of this? A YUGE move towards more internet providers.

Imagine if your business model was ‘no throttling, fast speeds everywhere, and I’ll charge you 75% of what the establishment cable/ISP’s will’ as a small business owner?

Even if your claims weren’t factually true the client base you’d attract immediately would be worth it.

This is truly a good thing if you love capatalism and free market expansion.

 

[Florida173]

I suspect I'm being throttled now with Verizon Fios, while under NN. I have gigabit and get loading on YouTube all the time.
I check internet speed from Verizon, consistently between 850-950. I check the normal internet speed test, consistently over 800. I check Netflix's speed test, over 800. Yet when I go to YouTube, I have trouble sometimes loading videos. 4k content should be gtg let alone 1080. Getting that little banner about having network issues doesn't provide any blame that is relevant since my speed is great. Since using a VPN I think it's been better, but it's always been intermittent. Thanks NN...

 

[AWP]

I'm immediately skeptical when any government says it will improve a consumer's life. NN is a solid concept in areas where competition exists, but elsewhere I think it will most assuredly not benefit the consumer. If other companies move in, that has promise, but if they don't you're at the mercy of your provider.

 

[digrar]

About 14 minutes, but I reckon he covers it.

 

[Ranger Psych]

I'm immediately skeptical when any government says it will improve a consumer's life. NN is a solid concept in areas where competition exists, but elsewhere I think it will most assuredly not benefit the consumer. If other companies move in, that has promise, but if they don't you're at the mercy of your provider.

Ft. Benning while I was still living on post had only dialup options for the barracks. Off post, you had Comcast, unless you could shell out the money for your own direct T1. Alaska, areas had sole solution providers as a general rule, although there was some attempt at competition. Here where I am in NV, you either get sorely undermaintained and monthly failing cable, or you get the county owned ISP which has fiber in bumfuck nevada however they specifically block TPB among other sites, forcing you to VPN around their stuff should you partake.

The only thing with regards to the internet that you should have to pay for, is the size of your connection TO the internet. There should be no differentiation between anything beyond that. The internet is wholly a part of free speech now.

 

[The Hate Ape]

except that industry has already flat out done what the concerns are..

Meh, I'm not so sure. Theres certainly an oligopoly at play here, much like the telecommunications act of 1996 - everyone swore up and down it would be the death of phone users:

Instead, 90 cent per minute calls switched to unlimited with even international options. The only thing that killed the landline was the introduction of new technology. Competition is a good thing, I don't think we'll see throttling - and now that it is easier to for competitive providers to establish a foothold in new territory, you'll likely see a host of options either sprout up in an area (potentially getting purchased by a larger company of course) and/or a true free-market.

This benefits the consumer in two ways - first, price competition, second - product innovation/overhaul. All good things.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Meh, I'm not so sure. Theres certainly an oligopoly at play here, much like the telecommunications act of 1996 - everyone swore up and down it would be the death of phone users:

Instead, 90 cent per minute calls switched to unlimited with even international options. The only thing that killed the landline was the introduction of new technology. Competition is a good thing, I don't think we'll see throttling - and now that it is easier to for competitive providers to establish a foothold in new territory, you'll likely see a host of options either sprout up in an area (potentially getting purchased by a larger company of course) and/or a true free-market.

This benefits the consumer in two ways - first, price competition, second - product innovation/overhaul. All good things.

Explain unlimited cellular across the board with guaranteed throttling when you actually use it? Pump packages from Verizon for X amount of time/data at high speeds?

 

[Florida173]

 

[DA SWO]

Google Fiber.
Being installed in my area now.
Established companies will step up to the competition, or fall by the wayside.