FCC approves plan to allow for paid priority on Internet

[green73]

The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that would dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.

The plan, approved in a three-to-two vote along party lines, could unleash a new economy on the Web where an Internet service provider such as Verizon would charge a Web site such as Netflix for the guarantee of flawless video streaming.

Smaller companies that can't afford to pay for faster delivery would likely face additional obstacles against bigger rivals. And consumers could see a trickle-down effect of higher prices as Web sites try to pass along new costs of doing business with Internet service providers.

The proposal is not a final rule, but the three-to-two vote on Thursday is a significant step forward on a controversial idea that has invited fierce opposition from consumer advocates, Silicon Valley heavyweights, and Democratic lawmakers.

cont.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/05/15/fcc-approves-plan-to-allow-for-paid-priority-on-internet//?print=1

No tag for 'net neutrality'?

[specsaregood]

good

[Brian4Liberty]

I missed an opportunity to discuss this with my Congressman.

After thinking about this issue, my thought on this is that it needs to be on the shoulders of the consumer. They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution. Users who are not charged for their actual usage will not modify their behavior. Best not to hide costs from consumers. That is a recipe for disaster.

Right now, it's like an "all you can eat" buffet, and people (and the restaurants) are complaining about the people who eat the most. The real solution is to make it like any other restaurant, and charge the people for what they eat.

Schemes which put burdens upon websites and internet services will inevitably result in favoritism and censorship.

[brandon]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?


Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

[brandon]

They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution.


That's the way most ISPs worked in the 90s and the market decided it sucked, so the limits were phased out and flat rates were brought in. It would make good business sense to have some kind of caps. It sucks when one dude in your neighborhood decides to download/seed torrents 24/7 so the rest of the multiplexed neighborhood gets sub par service.

I'm just hoping google fiber comes to my area sooner than later.

[Petar]

The only good regulation is a dead one.

[Brian4Liberty]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?

Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

Since it is already a regulated industry, I believe the big guys (Comcast, ATT, etc.) went to the FCC for approval of a scheme which essentially allows them to charge Netflix for priority on internet bandwidth.


That's the way most ISPs worked in the 90s and the market decided it sucked, so the limits were phased out and flat rates were brought in. It would make good business sense to have some kind of caps.

Nothing is done that doesn't benefit the profit margin. Flat rate schemes are priced such that the average consumer will actually pay more than if it was pay for usage.

This will lead to de facto censorship. The big media companies are part of the media-government complex, and they know damn well what this will lead to. Eventually, anyone who wants to put up a website will have to pay a fee, and meet certain criteria. Say goodbye to anything other than major media and big business websites.

[PRB]

I haven't read the bill or really followed this latest push. Why do they need to approve a plan to allow paid priority? Was it not already allowed?


Anyway... legislation in general is probably bad so I'm probably against it. But CDNs, ISPs etc should certainly be able to route and throttle packets however they see fit.

because liberals and other ignorant people are under some impression that internet access is a right, like the constitution guarantees everybody gets it, or some stupid thing like that.

ISPs SHOULD be allowed to charge whatever they want, and censor whoever they want.

[eduardo89]

good

I agree. Companies should be free to chose how they deliver and charge for a service.

[PRB]

This will lead to de facto censorship.


Only because some people depend on the internet to communicate, which is neither a duty nor a right.



The big media companies are part of the media-government complex, and they know damn well what this will lead to. Eventually, anyone who wants to put up a website will have to pay a fee, and meet certain criteria. Say goodbye to anything other than major media and big business websites.

you mean like paying webhosting fee and domain registration? I think it'll probably backfire on the consumer level first.

Consider how slow speed mobile internet is already chilling people's use of it. While it's physically possible to do many things you normally need a computer for on your smartphone, the speed, small screen, lack of easy way to authenticate website identity, ...etc, make mobile internet on phones both limited and dangerous for consumers. So what do people do? they go back to using their computers when it comes to paying bills, buying stuff, doing important things.

If the internet in general took this route for profit, they can expect people will use it less, it may still hurt the consumer, but not without hurting their profits.

Similarly, just watch while Netflix price hikes lead to lower subscription renewal. You can only fool the same consumers for so long.

[dillo]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

[eduardo89]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

Bandwidth isn't created, it is purchased, generally from one of the backbone Internet providers like UUNET, Sprint, Qwest and Level3.

[PRB]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

by running a bitband miner, you can download it to your computer and run it, you can then sell it on the bitwidth exchange.

[PRB]

Bandwidth isn't created, it is purchased, generally from one of the backbone Internet providers like UUNET, Sprint, Qwest and Level3.

I think you mean, it's first created, through infrastructure/hardware, it's then resold as consumer level bandwidth, much like how products are repackaged into smaller boxes.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I missed an opportunity to discuss this with my Congressman.

After thinking about this issue, my thought on this is that it needs to be on the shoulders of the consumer. They need to charge based on usage (perhaps after some sort of baseline), and that would be the most "market-oriented" solution. Users who are not charged for their actual usage will not modify their behavior. Best not to hide costs from consumers. That is a recipe for disaster.

Right now, it's like an "all you can eat" buffet, and people (and the restaurants) are complaining about the people who eat the most. The real solution is to make it like any other restaurant, and charge the people for what they eat.

Schemes which put burdens upon websites and internet services will inevitably result in favoritism and censorship.
People that pay for their usage would pay a disproportional amount because of all the other users that only use low bandwidth, kind of like health insurance.

[brandon]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

The internet has become a very complex network in the last decade. To simplify it, imagine there are three entities.

1) Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) - these are massive super fast networks that host most of the content on the internet. They are replicated all over the place. For example their might be CDN in every region of the country that is hosting the same youtube videos.

2) Internet Server providers (ISPs) - these companies generally connect end user's (you) to the content delivery networks, to other user's on the same ISP, and to other ISPs. They maintain the physical infrastructure in general.

3) End users (you)

Simplified network: You <-> ISP <-> CDN

You pay your ISP for network rights. The ISP pays the CDN based on usage. The ISP also pays other ISPs for communication through them.

Your bandwidth is limited by the physical connection in your neighborhood and how many people are using it at the same time, and the ISPs connection to the CDNs. In this case ISPs are saying that if people are using them to stream massive amounts of video from netflix, than they should be able to charge netflix an extra fee based on that. Seems reasonable to me.

[eduardo89]

I think you mean, it's first created, through infrastructure/hardware, it's then resold as consumer level bandwidth, much like how products are repackaged into smaller boxes.

Yes, you're right. I was talking about it from the ISP's perspective. They do not create bandwidth and are limited to selling the capacity they can possibly buy from a backbone provider which in turn is limited by their infrastructure.

[brandon]

Yes, you're right. I was talking about it from the ISP's perspective. They do not create bandwidth and are limited to selling the capacity they can possibly buy from a backbone provider which in turn is limited by their infrastructure.

. ISPs build and maintain infrastructure. They are closely partnered with the IXPs and CDNs. If comcast needs more throughput somewhere they will build it. Some ISPs like Verizon actually are their own tier 1 network which means they can reach every other network on the internet without needing to peer on other networks.

[eduardo89]

. ISPs build and maintain infrastructure. They are closely partnered with the IXPs and CDNs. If comcast needs more throughput somewhere they will build it. Some ISPs like Verizon actually are their own tier 1 network which means they can reach every other network on the internet without needing to peer on other networks.

I just looked it up and there are 7 Tier 1 providers in the US: Level 3 Communications, TeliaSonera International Carrier, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T Corporation.

[brandon]

How is bandwith generated? Or more specifically what limits how much bandwith an ISP has to give out?

Actually forget everything I typed above. The old "tubes" analogy really is a pretty decent one. Think of it like water flowing through pipes. You can only fit so much water at a certain pressure. If you need more water you need more pipes. That's basically it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE

[alucard13mm]

Problem is often times, only one isp operates in one neighborhood....

[PRB]

Problem is often times, only one isp operates in one neighborhood....

that "problem" is not a real one, since there is no right to internet access, nor a duty that you must have it.

[dntrpltt]

When only one or two ISPs operate in a neighborhood because government-sponsored monopolies make it near impossible for anyone else to enter the market, you can't have a free market solution to net neutrality. Ideally, yes, ISPs would be allowed to throttle their bandwidth or censor whatever they wanted, because the free market would correct that problem and consumers would be allowed to switch to a competitor who didn't. But when there isn't any competitor to switch to because lobbyists for these corporations have done their job and gotten rules imposed that favor them over anyone else, then the free market won't be able to correct the problem.

In my county, there are only two solutions other than satellite internet (which is capped at 10GB a month): Frontier's DSL (2-6 mbps; 20-30 a month) or ZitoMedia's Cable (10 mbps; 40 a month). Unfortunately, not everywhere in my county has both options--at my house, we are only able to get DSL, and we are basically forced to have two routers in order to meet everyone's bandwidth requirements. Going to a competitor would be ideal, however, there isn't a competitor to switch to. In other words, I already pay $60 a month for two routers running 6mbps internet access, and I imagine it would get much more expensive if these companies forced consumers to pay for un-throttled access to certain services. On top of this, at peak times, my bandwidth availability drops substantially (sometimes to half what I'm paying for).

I would imagine, though, that the majority of internet users in my county stick with the well advertised $20 a month for 2mbps DSL access, partially because some telephone lines in the county can't actually handle the 6mbps that I'm able to get (and the cable is pretty much limited to the city limits, which is maybe a 3-4 mile radius). Additionally, because this is the mountains, sometimes even that capped satellite internet isn't an option. One company controls the only option.

[PRB]

When only one or two ISPs operate in a neighborhood because government-sponsored monopolies make it near impossible for anyone else to enter the market

Internet access is not a right, get over it.

[dntrpltt]

Internet access is not a right, get over it.
Corporations do not have the right to have regulations created that favors those already in the marketplace (http://crosscut.com/2014/03/04/business/118993/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-broadband-internet/) over their competitors. Toilet paper isn't a right either, but if the government made it near impossible for anyone else to enter the toilet paper market, that would be pretty sh*tty in my opinion.

[PRB]

Corporations do not have the right to have regulations created that favors those already in the marketplace (http://crosscut.com/2014/03/04/business/118993/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-broadband-internet/) over their competitors. Toilet paper isn't a right either, but if the government made it near impossible for anyone else to enter the toilet paper market, that would be pretty sh*tty in my opinion.

pretty shitty is not illegal.

[dntrpltt]

pretty shitty is not illegal.

So because crony capitalism isn't illegal, we should support it?

[eduardo89]

So because crony capitalism isn't illegal, we should support it?

How is allowing a company to determine the way it provides and charges for its services crony capitalism? Should ISPs be forced to deliver all data in the same way?

[dntrpltt]

How is allowing a company to determine the way it provides and charges for its services crony capitalism? Should ISPs be forced to deliver all data in the same way?

I'm not saying that it is. But when a company encourages government restrictions on any competitors that pop-up in the areas (http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/) it serves, that is crony capitalism. Ideally, ISPs could do whatever they wanted to with their data--that's the beauty of the free market, consumers could go and choose from a provider that didn't, was better, etc. But when consumers don't have that choice because of the legal hurdles that a provider has to overcome to enter an area, it isn't a free market. It would be different if ISPs just chose not to enter a market because the tech was expensive, but the government shouldn't get in the way in the slightest.

[eduardo89]

I'm not saying that it is. But when a company encourages government restrictions on any competitors that pop-up in the areas (http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/) it serves, that is crony capitalism.

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about creating barriers preventing other ISPs from entering the market, this thread is about whether an ISP has the right to determine how it will deliver and charge for its services.

[PRB]

What does that have to do with this thread? This thread isn't about creating barriers preventing other ISPs from entering the market, this thread is about whether an ISP has the right to determine how it will deliver and charge for its services.

this guy's logic is, because the market wasn't free to begin with, we must use government to make it even less free. use government to solve government, just like we need to mandate GMO labelling to combat Monsanto's privileges and advantages

[dntrpltt]

this guy's logic is, because the market wasn't free to begin with, we must use government to make it even less free. use government to solve government, just like we need to mandate GMO labelling to combat Monsanto's privileges and advantages

No, what I'm saying is, there are two options to combat this problem: Rescind all government restrictions (which isn't going to happen any time soon), or net neutrality. Internet has always been throttled, and it will continue to be throttled (right now, my contract says that after I hit a point in my data, my bandwidth drops off), but companies that reap the benefit of the government's regulations shouldn't be able to throttle their bandwidth on a selective, discriminatory basis. It's almost equivalent to the government stepping in and saying "You want Netflix? Pay twice as much." I don't like the government forcing the ISPs to open up their bandwidth either, but I also don't like the ISPs colluding with the government to put up a giant brick wall in the path of innovation.

90% of the arguments I hear against Net Neutrality are "Oh no, the government is regulating internet for the first time! Unprecedented!" It's already regulated, probably will (unfortunately) always be regulated, and its important to recognize the complex nature of the issue rather than just write everything off without approaching it from every possible side.

[Brian4Liberty]

People that pay for their usage would pay a disproportional amount because of all the other users that only use low bandwidth, kind of like health insurance.

Kind of like Obamacare...


In this case ISPs are saying that if people are using them to stream massive amounts of video from netflix, than they should be able to charge netflix an extra fee based on that. Seems reasonable to me.

It's reasonable. But it separates the end consumer from the actual cost, thus market forces are stifled.

Instead of $75 or more monthly flat fee for smart phones, did you know that you can get "pay for what you" use plans starting at $15/mo? At least in the cell market there are more options right now.


Actually forget everything I typed above. The old "tubes" analogy really is a pretty decent one. Think of it like water flowing through pipes. You can only fit so much water at a certain pressure. If you need more water you need more pipes. That's basically it.

The difference is the compression option. ;)

[Brian4Liberty]

I just looked it up and there are 7 Tier 1 providers in the US: Level 3 Communications, TeliaSonera International Carrier, CenturyLink, Vodafone, Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T Corporation.

I used to work at one of the above in network capacity management...

[charrob]

I guess I don’t understand this issue very well.

I think I understand that:

1) Data packets flow around on networks between lines and routers until they reach their destination.
2) Currently all data packets flow at the same speed because of net neutrality.
3) Taking away net neutrality means a whole new set of lines and routers will be created for a new network, and data packets that travel on those lines and through those routers will flow at a faster speed than the data packets on the slower, original, network.
-------------------------------------------------

Example:

4) Say I have a small business called: “Mom’s Homemade Cookies”. I’m located in City “XYZ” and sell cookies in a shop locally. However, people in other states who have typed the search term “Homemade Cookies” into their browser have seen my website and so buy my cookies via the web as well. There are many large corporations located in City “XYZ” who also now sell factory made cookies online, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. But because of Net Neutrality, all data packets travel equally fast on the web and Search Results from typing in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” has allowed “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” to be right up on that first Google Results page with “Walmart”, “Target”, and “Home Depot".

5) The rules change. Net Neutrality is abandoned. A whole new set of lines and routers are created where data packets flow faster. As a small business with 5 employees, I cannot afford to pay for the network where data packets move faster. However Walmart, Target, and Home Depot can and many other large corporations who sell factory made cookies can.

6) When people now type in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” as their Google Search Term, “Walmart”, “Target” and “Home Depot” are still right up on that first Google Results page along with many others who sell factory made cookies but pay for the faster packet network. However, the search result “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” travelled on the slower packet network and ended up being on Google Search Results page number 40 even though many of the previous results pages contained businesses who did not make homemade cookies but just sold factory made cookies. Because most people rarely look on Google Search Results page number 40, with time, “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” had less and less web customers, so had to lay off workers.

So my question would be: Could getting rid of Net Neutrality create a situation like the above scenario?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I guess I don’t understand this issue very well.

I think I understand that:

1) Data packets flow around on networks between lines and routers until they reach their destination.
2) Currently all data packets flow at the same speed because of net neutrality.
3) Taking away net neutrality means a whole new set of lines and routers will be created for a new network, and data packets that travel on those lines and through those routers will flow at a faster speed than the data packets on the slower, original, network.
-------------------------------------------------

Example:

4) Say I have a small business called: “Mom’s Homemade Cookies”. I’m located in City “XYZ” and sell cookies in a shop locally. However, people in other states who have typed the search term “Homemade Cookies” into their browser have seen my website and so buy my cookies via the web as well. There are many large corporations located in City “XYZ” who also now sell factory made cookies online, including Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. But because of Net Neutrality, all data packets travel equally fast on the web and Search Results from typing in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” has allowed “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” to be right up on that first Google Results page with “Walmart”, “Target”, and “Home Depot".

5) The rules change. Net Neutrality is abandoned. A whole new set of lines and routers are created where data packets flow faster. As a small business with 5 employees, I cannot afford to pay for the network where data packets move faster. However Walmart, Target, and Home Depot can and many other large corporations who sell factory made cookies can.

6) When people now type in “Homemade Cookies XYZ” as their Google Search Term, “Walmart”, “Target” and “Home Depot” are still right up on that first Google Results page along with many others who sell factory made cookies but pay for the faster packet network. However, the search result “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” travelled on the slower packet network and ended up being on Google Search Results page number 40 even though many of the previous results pages contained businesses who did not make homemade cookies but just sold factory made cookies. Because most people rarely look on Google Search Results page number 40, with time, “Mom’s Homemade Cookies” had less and less web customers, so had to lay off workers.

So my question would be: Could getting rid of Net Neutrality create a situation like the above scenario?
what no, search results have nothing to do with how fast a network is. What they can do is limit your connection to certain internet networks, just like how cable companies limit your channel selection unless you pay more. Oh, like watching youtube? Well buy the 10 dollars/month online video plan and get access to YouTube and Hulu without any lag.

[Tod]

good

Did you listen to Ben Swann and his guest's take on the consequences of this?

http://youtu.be/VGit3RiCWaY?t=29m31s

"People have to understand, this is cronyism at its best" ~ Ben Swann

[Anti Federalist]

I'm only sure of a few things here:

This will end up costing more.

This will end up with government having even greater access to spy and snoop.

This will end up with websites having "non approved" messages being deleted, blocked, or squeezed out of existence.

[green73]

Get the fucking government out of it. Fucking statists here.

[Tod]

I'm only sure of a few things here:

This will end up costing more.

This will end up with government having even greater access to spy and snoop.

This will end up with websites having "non approved" messages being deleted, blocked, or squeezed out of existence.


According to Ben and his guest, this has the potential to turn the internet into essentially like a cable tv package, where you pay so much to get so many web sites. The little content producer effectively gets locked out......no chance at visibility.

[charrob]

what no, search results have nothing to do with how fast a network is. What they can do is limit your connection to certain internet networks, just like how cable companies limit your channel selection unless you pay more. Oh, like watching youtube? Well buy the 10 dollars/month online video plan and get access to YouTube and Hulu without any lag.

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

[DamianTV]

Our $9.95 a month fee allows you access to Google, Yahoo, and AOL.
Our $19.95 a month feel allows you access to Youtube, Facebook, and MySpace.
For just $79.95, we will allow you access to all the rest of the sites on the internet.

Fail this form of Net Neutrality has become.

[Tod]

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

Yep, or even worse.....essentially corporate censorship of potential competition or sites presenting "unacceptable" viewpoints (according to either gov't or corporate viewpoints)

[orenbus]

Agreed, I don't like this.

[Tod]

Our $9.95 a month fee allows you access to Google, Yahoo, and AOL.
Our $19.95 a month feel allows you access to Youtube, Facebook, and MySpace.
For just $79.95, we will allow you access to all some of the rest of the sites on the internet. But not some that we or our partners (gov't) disapprove of.

Fail this form of Net Neutrality has become.


FTFY

[charrob]

Yep, or even worse.....essentially corporate censorship of potential competition or sites presenting "unacceptable" viewpoints (according to either gov't or corporate viewpoints)


Wow. So why would anyone be against Net Neutrality where all data packets are considered equal?

Isn't this going to harm small businesses and opportunities for the budding of small businesses?

[kahless]

This would suck.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg

[Brian4Liberty]

Get the fucking government out of it. Fucking statists here.

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

[Brian4Liberty]

Did you listen to Ben Swann and his guest's take on the consequences of this?

http://youtu.be/VGit3RiCWaY?t=29m31s

"People have to understand, this is cronyism at its best" ~ Ben Swann

OMG! Ben Swann (and David Christopher) are statists! They don't want the government-media complex to throttle them. Err, or is it the other way around? They are anti-regulation, but they don't want to give the ISPs the right to throttle them, which is regulation in itself. It's so confusing. What's wrong with Ben Swann, doesn't he know there is no such thing as an oligopoly?

[green73]

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

weep?

[Brian4Liberty]

Thanks for responding. I think I understand what you're saying. So if net neutrality is taken away, the ISP can basically not allow us to get to particular websites on the internet unless we pay an additional fee? So, if the ISP doesn't like antiwar.com or Buchanan.org, the ISP can decide not to let us see those websites unless we pay an additional fee. Is that correct?

Or not see them at all. Just like Comcast and the couple of other TV providers do today.

Glenn Beck has tried as hard as he can to get his Blaze network on TV. It's not an issue of money. The cable companies just refuse. And eventually, they can throttle him right off of the internet too.

[Brian4Liberty]

weep?

Might as well give up TV and the internet today (that would show them!). The Ministry of Truth is consolidating.

[green73]

Might as well give up TV and the internet today (that would show them!). The Ministry of Truth is consolidating.

Yes, we live in a fascist shit hole. What's your point? Get the gov't out of it and there'd be no problem.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, we live in a fascist shit hole. What's your point? Get the gov't out of it and there'd be no problem.

Government is already in it. Partnered with big media. This is all just a dog and pony show now as the grip tightens.

One thing would truly make them question their actions is if people really do stop using it, and they can't track everyone anymore.

[charrob]

Or not see them at all. Just like Comcast and the couple of other TV providers do today.

Glenn Beck has tried as hard as he can to get his Blaze network on TV. It's not an issue of money. The cable companies just refuse. And eventually, they can throttle him right off of the internet too.


That is frightening. It destroys opportunities and visibility for small businesses, it restricts the world of ideas; like the newspeak dictionary, eliminated words are forgotten and with them the thoughts and meanings and ideas behind those words are gone.

It's like a presidential debate between the two corporate parties on war: one lesser evil says: "we need sanctions!" and the greater evil says: "we need war!" So the people listening don't even realize that nonintervention is a choice because it is never mentioned.

Net neutrality means all data packets are considered equal. The ISP's cannot discriminate. That's the way it is now. So again I ask: what is wrong with net neutrality? What is wrong with the requirement that all data packets are considered equal?

[jclay2]

So can anyone tell me why ISP are not charging consumers based on the amount of data they use? Netflix isn't the driver of the traffic, the consumers are. It just seems so backwards to charge the companies as opposed the consumers trying to access the site. My plan would involve a fixed charge for infrastructure and then a variable charge depending how much you download.

[Matt Collins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_udd5K91o&amp;feature=player_embedded


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU




Net Neutrality violates the First and Fifth Amendments:
http://www.cato.org/blog/net-neutrality-violates-first-fifth-amendments

[nayjevin]

Who came up with the phrase Net Neutrality? Cause if it's the same folks responsible for Patriot Act...

[Brian4Liberty]

So can anyone tell me why ISP are not charging consumers based on the amount of data they use? Netflix isn't the driver of the traffic, the consumers are. It just seems so backwards to charge the companies as opposed the consumers trying to access the site. My plan would involve a fixed charge for infrastructure and then a variable charge depending how much you download.

Because that would actually be fair, would introduce true market discipline, and wouldn't allow them to control it in the future. And as stated earlier in the thread they can charge more with the unlimited option, as the majority of people will pay far more than their actual usage.

[PRB]

And what do you do when the internet providers are for all intents and purposes, "the government"?

if this guy doesn't get his way, he can call his enemies "government"

[PRB]

So can anyone tell me why ISP are not charging consumers based on the amount of data they use?


Because prior to legal streaming, there was little one could do with broadband that's legal.

Prior to broadband, speed was enough to limit a person's usage.

Today, we have both broadband and lots of legal ways to exploit bandwidth, so ISPs are starting to notice it's time to rethink pricing.



Netflix isn't the driver of the traffic, the consumers are.


they both are.



It just seems so backwards to charge the companies as opposed the consumers trying to access the site.


Good news : they can double dip! there's no way, short of laws, that will stop them from charging both content providers and end users (not to mention they can be hard to distinguish). this is no different than cellphone companies charging you for talking, regardless of whether you made the call or are answering it.



My plan would involve a fixed charge for infrastructure and then a variable charge depending how much you download.

Which is basically a data cap, pre-paid, with option to burst.

[idiom]

The limiting factor is last mile access. The libertarian solution is for a company to build out last mile access then re-sell it to all-comers. This breaks the geographic monopolies.

The practical government solution is to build tonnes of little companies that are chartered in a similar fashion to provide last-mile access to any company that wants it at the same rate. We have just started this process in New Zealand and it looks like it will be very effective.

When you have 50 different ISP's then you won't get retarded consumer hurting behavior.

The problem in America is Municipalities getting kickbacks from Monopolies to keep last mile competitors out.

[Brian4Liberty]

Related:


Ted Cruz bill would ban 'FCC's latest adventure in net neutrality'

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wants Congress to ban "the FCC's latest adventure in 'net neutrality,' " saying the proposed changes to Internet regulations would damage the industry.

"A five-member panel at the FCC should not be dictating how Internet services will be provided to millions of Americans," Cruz said in a Wednesday afternoon statement. "I will be introducing legislation that would remove the claimed authority for the FCC to take such actions, specifically the Commission's nebulous Sec. 706 authority. More than $1 trillion has already been invested in broadband infrastructure, which has led to an explosion of new content, applications, and Internet accessibility. Congress, not an unelected commission, should take the lead on modernizing our telecommunications laws. The FCC should not endanger future investments by stifling growth in the online sector, which remains a much-needed bright spot in our struggling economy."

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has also denounced the proposed rules unveiled by FCC chairman Tom Wheeler. "The latest proposed rules by Wheeler -- what he's really talking about is creating a fast lane where people can pay to have their content treated unequally," he told Time. "That's not net neutrality. That's pay for play. That's antithetical to net neutrality."
...
More:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-bill-would-ban-fccs-latest-adventure-in-net-neutrality/article/2548441

[Brian4Liberty]

if this guy doesn't get his way, he can call his enemies "government"

Some of us are pointing out the Orwellian future where a fascist private/public corporatist partnership controls all information. No one here wants more government, but we see the writing on the wall.

[Brian4Liberty]

Today, we have both broadband and lots of legal ways to exploit bandwidth, so ISPs are starting to notice it's time to rethink pricing.
...
Which is basically a data cap, pre-paid, with option to burst.

So what's your vested interest? Are you working at a start-up that wants to utilize bandwidth and resell? I'm all for that, and use that for cell phone service right now. I may research that for home internet.

[PRB]

So what's your vested interest? Are you working at a start-up that wants to utilize bandwidth and resell? I'm all for that, and use that for cell phone service right now. I may research that for home internet.

No vested interest.

[PRB]

The limiting factor is last mile access. The libertarian solution is for a company to build out last mile access then re-sell it to all-comers. This breaks the geographic monopolies.

The practical government solution is to build tonnes of little companies that are chartered in a similar fashion to provide last-mile access to any company that wants it at the same rate. We have just started this process in New Zealand and it looks like it will be very effective.

When you have 50 different ISP's then you won't get retarded consumer hurting behavior.

The problem in America is Municipalities getting kickbacks from Monopolies to keep last mile competitors out.

Internet access is not a right. So while it's true that last mile is a regional monopoly, there is no right to equal access or open competition.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_udd5K91o&amp;feature=player_embedded


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juw5Ew_fKgs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcjU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHxc-AzslMo

[Mr Tansill]

I'm not sure how old some of those videos are, but I feel like I should provide an update:

It's now well documented that ISPs have throttled and restricted access to their competitor's content, and without intervention on behalf of consumers, this practice was likely to continue and get worse over time. The claim asking in one video "where is the fire" (implying there is no issue) is currently invalid - Netflix was already held hostage by an ISP and was forced to pay a fee that restored their previous data rate.

The claim made at the end of the first video that the government is the one "micromanaging" the internet is particularly funny. The government seeks to implement one rule: "no corporation can restrict the flow of data over the internet based on the content of the data." The broadband providers would be the ones who would implement an endless slew of controls and restrictions against their competitor's content. Which of those seems more like "micromanagement?" LOL.

I've posted this video elsewhere, but I'll put it in this thread because I think it does a good job distilling the issue in a very easy to comprehend way:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M