Author Topic: Net Neutrality ?  (Read 2740 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline moj

  • beer snob
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9145
Net Neutrality ?
« on: April 12, 2017, 02:14:33 PM »
Trump's head of the FCC is not a fan and actively working towards ending net neutrality, do you think he can do it and what will that mean for the rest of us? While I think it should stay neutral for the most part think it's complicated and easy to mess up by tinkering, unintended consequences blah blah blah. Al that said realize that many people don't use a that much of the  bandwidth and we will soon have more competing mediums. 5g gets us closer to wireless carriers being an option for more people to get rid of the cable internet line. A tiered internet seems like a likely outcome and can't see that is good thing, what do you all think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Quote
Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.[1] The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[2][3][4][5]

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15976
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2017, 02:17:29 PM »
Doesn't he also support selling your data?
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2017, 04:20:48 PM »
I think it's one of the worst ideas the right wing has ever had, and that's saying something. Especially nowadays, where we have these blog wars between the forces of skepticism and those of disinformation. Just as an example, imagine if fossil fuel companies start paying for the blogs of climate change deniers to get preferential treatment over those of actual skeptics.



Al that said realize that many people don't use a that much of the  bandwidth and we will soon have more competing mediums. 5g gets us closer to wireless carriers being an option for more people to get rid of the cable internet line.

Not sure I get the relevance of this... Bandwidth and other net neutrality considerations don't suddenly become irrelevant when your communication is wireless.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2017, 04:24:25 PM »
Can he do it?  Almost certainly, unless it's made politically infeasible by activism.  What will it do?  It will remove one of the great equalizing forces on the Internet, stifling innovation and perpetuating inequality.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2017, 04:51:39 PM »
Can he do it?  Almost certainly, unless it's made politically infeasible by activism.

At least it's not popular at all...
Quote
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) disparaged net neutrality as “Obamacare for the Internet,” a description that is, perhaps, even more absurd than he is. Standing in opposition to net neutrality is tantamount to standing against innovation, against small business, against private-sector job creation and against competition — all of the things that the Republican Party claims to stand for.

It also puts the party on the opposite side of the overwhelming majority of the public. According to a recent poll, 81 percent of Americans, including 85 percent of Republicans, oppose “allowing Internet service providers to charge some websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds.” Nevertheless, Republicans appear poised to continue battling net neutrality in the next Congress, as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has pledged that “Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet.”

The fight for net neutrality started long ago, the result of a people-powered movement that has spent years fighting for an open and free Internet. As Obama acknowledged in his statement, for example, the FCC’s plan to allow “fast lanes” received almost 4 million public comments, the most in the agency’s history.

That gives me a tiny bit of hope here. Still, it strikes me as something that can easily fly under the radar in the face of all the insanity coming from the Trump administration.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5215
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2017, 05:27:18 PM »
I was struck by the graph on the John Oliver video showing NetFlix's download speeds. That deep valley might have been right around the time when NetFlix streaming stopped working for me. That was when, after a month of being unable to watch it, and getting no replies from NetFlix, I canceled my streaming account.

And, FWIW, other than their nastiness in throttling NetFlix (if Oliver is right and they actually did that) I actually rate Comcast customer service as one of the best I've dealt with. Always a U.S.-based tech who understands the issue and gets my problem solved.

But I thought Net Neutrality was already dead. I didn't realize they were still working on killing it.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2017, 05:45:00 PM »
I was struck by the graph on the John Oliver video showing NetFlix's download speeds.

Yeah, that graph might be the best hint at how bad things could easily get.
Mooohn!

Offline Nemmzy

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2017, 12:01:08 PM »
Yes, and it will result in higher prices and less choice. Also, I am going to assume that small local business won't be able to afford the fast lane. Meaning people might choose Applebee's over the dinner around the corner because it takes to damn long for the menu PDF to download. There is also the issue of political sites and other activistism organization sites being force into the slow lane because a isp's CEO or board does not like what they have to say. There is more to worry about beyond streaming GoT and downloading games off Xbox Live.

Also, don't forget Trump as an axe to grind with the content providers.

Net Neutrality is based off an interpretation of the Federal Commications Act. It is not law as in passed by congress and signed by a president.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 12:03:21 PM by Nemmzy »

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 15689
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2017, 05:28:12 PM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2017, 05:48:24 PM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

What advantages would that approach offer? And how would antitrust prevent rich and powerful individuals from buying some extra bandwidth for their political activism site of choice, for example?
Mooohn!

Offline arthwollipot

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5743
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2017, 09:55:35 PM »
Ah yes. Litigation, not regulation, is the answer!

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 15689
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2017, 11:45:41 PM »
The way to solve this issue is antitrust against ISPs, not net neutrality.  Keep the FCC's grubby hands off the internet!

What advantages would that approach offer? And how would antitrust prevent rich and powerful individuals from buying some extra bandwidth for their political activism site of choice, for example?

The ISPs can shake down content creators (Netflix being the example everyone knows) precisely because of their non-compete monopolistic practices.  Collusion is real, it's already illegal, it's actually only allowed if recognized as a public utility, which they should not be.

As far as paying for more bandwidth.  Political groups advertise on sites like YouTube and Facebook.  The ads are then hosted on those servers, or at least served up by them.  How would a campaign get "extra bandwidth?". I mean wouldn't they be paying Facebook, not the ISP?  Besides which Facebook was trying to bring subsided internet to underserved markets until those governments bought the lie that net neutrality is a good thing.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3426
  • mooh
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2017, 08:25:54 AM »
As far as paying for more bandwidth.  Political groups advertise on sites like YouTube and Facebook.  The ads are then hosted on those servers, or at least served up by them.  How would a campaign get "extra bandwidth?". I mean wouldn't they be paying Facebook, not the ISP?  Besides which Facebook was trying to bring subsided internet to underserved markets until those governments bought the lie that net neutrality is a good thing.

Would facebook buying their way into the fast lane that a startup social media site can't afford be covered by anti-trust laws? I mean, I suppose it's a competitive advantage, but not much more than owning your own server farm and a huge software development team is. And isn't that kind of the point of a tiered internet anyway?

In any case, not everything is hosted on youtube and facebook, and those companies would probably be able to afford the fast lane already anyway. There are other possibilities. As I pointed out above, climate change deniers and other such groups often run their own websites and blogs. Breaking net neutrality could be advantageous for small groups backed by wealthy industries.

Imagine I am someone who doesn't know much about science. I click on three google links because I want to look something up about a controversial subject. One is a denier site that is on the fast lane and highly responsive. The rest are volunteer science based outlets that take forever to load because they are not on the fast lane. Considering I am not a very patient person, which one am I more likely to come back to in the future?

Imagine that your ISP is run by radical vegans. They could easily systematically favor vegan websites and slow down traffic to meat industry websites. Or maybe they'll just decide to charge an extra, small fee for traffic to meat industry websites. And hey, look, suddenly it's not just the meat industry websites that get less responsive, but also websites hosting ads for the meat industry. Pretty soon, no one is hosting meat industry ads anymore and every site has snappy, pro-vegan banners. This is not a case of monopolistic competition, since they are not in the business of selling meat (or meat substitute) products, and so they are not competitors to those websites; they are merely the ones allocating their bandwidth, and they happen to like vegan products.

Or maybe I own a large ISP and I just fucking hate people from Chesterton, IN, because this guy once gave me a wedgie when I was an awkward nerd in high school, and he was from Chesterton. And hey, look, some asshole started a Chesterton-based server farm! Fuck that Chesterton guy! I'm charging 10 cents extra for every MB downloaded from or to any server located in Chesterton! I don't have a financial stake in this. I don't own a rival server farm. I just hate those guys. Am I in breach of antitrust? Who cares, anyway? Chesterton is tiny. The vast majority of my customers aren't even going to notice. But maybe that tiny percentage of people who are actually from Chesterton and who are relying on traffic from elsewhere for their income will notice. And maybe that guy will have to relocate his server farm away from dirty old Chesterton or go out of business.
Silly example, I know. But now imagine that instead of people from Chesterton, I just hate Arabs, and I decide to charge extra for traffic to and from servers located in Arabic nations. Or maybe I hate Jews. Or black people. Or Chinese. Or maybe I just hate Republicans, so blue states get a discounted rate.

Or, imagine I am an ISP owned, via a number of intermediaries, by Russian oligarchs who want to influence an election by using, oh, I dunno, a network of internet trolls, message boards, and blogs to quickly spread misinformation around the globe. Well, I think you see where this is going.

Basically, the issue is that, when your ISP can decide who to favor on the internet in any way, the ISP can decide where you can and cannot go, or how easily and cheaply you can go there. With the internet being as influential as it is, on societal scales, that can affect how people behave in pretty dramatic ways. Do you want to give ISPs that kind of power? Are you going to switch ISPs every time you notice a certain website is slow or unreachable? Will you switch ISPs because they charge more for traffic to or from the Ukraine, or would it be easier just to visit a Russian website that has almost the same stuff (except for those pro-Putin blurbs they do)?
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 08:31:38 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 15689
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2017, 01:07:09 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.
I'm just the victim of my cognitive privilege

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5215
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Net Neutrality ?
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2017, 01:47:44 PM »
Paid search rankings are already a thing.  Video content is the only content that would even see any appreciably quality due to the "fast lane."  And again that pretty much is just Facebook and YouTube these days.  Your examples make no sense.

Facebook and YouTube are the only providers of video content??? That's news to me.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

 

personate-rain