Do you support Net Neutrality?

[Mr Tansill]

Poll should read: Do you support Net Neutrality?

Hey everyone,

I was surprised recently at the amount of disagreement on the net neutrality issue, so I thought I would offer up a poll to see where the majority of us stand.

Simply put, my understanding of net neutrality is the principle that the providers of your internet connection (i.e. ComCast, Verizon, etc.), should not have the ability to discriminate against the different types of traffic (i.e. content) that travel along the wire.

What do you think? Yes or No?

Edited for clarification.

[Lucille]

Rewording is in order. Maybe just remove the "or oppose" part, so we can answer with a Yes or No.

[brushfire]

I think the question would be better worded as "Do you support Net Neutrality".

I have voted to the negative on that question. I am an IT professional, and I understand the implications of so called "Net Neutrality", and the true intentions of the government. There is already binding regulation in place that would address the proclaimed concerns that are to be addressed by "Net Neutrality".

Complete hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

[Mr Tansill]

I think the question would be better worded as "Do you support Net Neutrality".

I have voted to the negative on that question. I am an IT professional, and I understand the implications of so called "Net Neutrality", and the true intentions of the government. There is already binding regulation in place that would address the proclaimed concerns that are to be addressed by "Net Neutrality".

Complete hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not familiar with that regulation, and actually think this paints a different picture: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2...et-neutrality/.

Do you think a company should be allowed to control the speed of traffic based on content?

[Lucille]

Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blo...nd-google.html

What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.

Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)
[...]
Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.

Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.

[Mr Tansill]

Ok, I think I understand the crux of that argument, but the author of that Coyote blog frames it in terms of Netflix (and Google) being the ones who "take a huge amount of bandwidth."

Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it.

Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)

I understand it does cost ISPs a lot of money to provide these services. IMO, however, it is not Netflix or Google taking up that bandwidth, but rather the consumers who are actually downloading that content...right? I mean, if Netflix had no subscribers, how much bandwidth would they use? None whatsoever. If no one watched YouTube videos, how much bandwidth would those videos consume? Zero. In that vein, I think it is incumbent upon ISPs to choose a pricing model that accurately reflects the costs of providing their services and then charging the customer appropriately.

See, ISPs already price their product according to a tiered model in which price increases as the capacity to download goes up (source: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html). If ISPs come to the realization that certain products they offer are not "pulling their weight," then they can price them differently. Meaning if they determine a user is actually using their 50 Mbps connection, pulling tons and tons of content, they may have to increase the price for that level of service in order to make it profitable to them. This concept is allowable under the Net Neutrality construct, and prevents ISPs from choosing what you are allowed and not allowed to use your connection for. At the same time, it addresses the ISP claim that they need to be able to charge more in order to provide so much streaming content! There's nothing in the way of them increasing the price of their 50 Mbps connection!

The most apt analogy I can make actually involves Netflix. It used to be, in a not-so-distant past, that Netflix movies were delivered by mail. In their business model, the customer had to pay a certain amount in order to have a movie delivered to their house. Of course, this increase in mail volume to certain individuals' homes did not lead the post office to say "Whoa, whoa, whoa Mr. Consumer...all these extra DVDs are costing us too much to deliver to your house. If you want us to continue delivering these, you will have to pay an extra fee on top of the postage which was already paid by Netflix in order for us to deliver it." Can you imagine if such a thing took place? Postage was already paid! The revolt and uprising would have been unprecedented!

[TheCount]

I understand it does cost ISPs a lot of money to provide these services. IMO, however, it is not Netflix or Google taking up that bandwidth, but rather the consumers who are actually downloading that content...right? I mean, if Netflix had no subscribers, how much bandwidth would they use? None whatsoever. If no one watched YouTube videos, how much bandwidth would those videos consume? Zero. In that vein, I think it is incumbent upon ISPs to choose a pricing model that accurately reflects the costs of providing their services and then charging the customer appropriately.

Precisely.

Imagine if the owner of a toll road wanted to charge Ford because the majority of cars on the toll road were Fords. What would the response to that be?

[Mr Tansill]

Imagine if the owner of a toll road wanted to charge Ford because the majority of cars on the toll road were Fords.

Ha! A good analogy...I need to start a list...

[The Free Hornet]

Wording ... whatever, I voted NO because NN is nebulous concept. As a bill, Lucille is spot on about corporate welfare (or censorship or regulatory capture).

Many NN folk may not realize that some would gladly pay less for an ISP connection that is flakey to Google and Netflix. I.e., dafuq do I care about them? It can even be spotty here - - I'll negotiate the level of service needed. The public utility arguments would be more appealing if there was a single public utility that cost me less than $20/month (AT&T, Crook County, IL). That is what typical utility connect fees/month are before getting a drop of water, an once of garbage, a watt of electricity, a whiff of gas, or a drip of sewage. And the ISP I can CANCEL, the other utilities, some of them not so much.

There are many ideas better than NN like defending the constitution, ending the NSA.

[brushfire]

I'm not familiar with that regulation, and actually think this paints a different picture: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2...et-neutrality/.

Do you think a company should be allowed to control the speed of traffic based on content?

I see, and I stand corrected as the DC court had vacated the "no blocking" aspect of the regulation. It happened in January, I clearly wasn't paying attention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Ope...net_Order_2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon...mission_(2014)


To answer your question about whether a company should be allowed to control the speed on their network, I would say yes. There are different demands, depending on the type of communication. QOS provides the ability to give priority on communication that is latency sensitive, such as VOIP, or video streaming. File transfers can be done in the background and a variance in transfer rates would be less noticeable. By prioritizing, the ISP or company can achieve higher potential for the resources available, and this can translate into more options for the consumer.

Now, the argument is that the companies will use this to throttle and deliberately slow down competitors, or fabricate tiers of service to gouge consumers.

I think this concern about how the ISP's will use QOS or throttling to thwart competition is completely eclipsed by the government control that would be required to enforce so called "net neutrality". Lets not forget either that this is the same government that claims to protect consumers from monopolies. One of the biggest arguments in favor of regulation is to prevent monopolies, yet we see what has happened with comcrap, and their consolidation of the market. Who's really being protected by this regulation?

There's no doubt in my mind that the NSA has their pricks in most ISP networks, but I know for a fact that they are only operating at a fraction of what they could be, and a solid ISP presence would bring surveillance to new levels. Again, how does one suppose the government is going to know that ISP's are being fair - what will have to be done, and how might that be exploited for other (NN unrelated) agendas? These guys are out to have absolute control of the internet, and eliminate any anonymity.

This "net neutrality" is as much of a ruse as sopa, cispa, pipa, etc... Its a pretty face on absolute evil, as I see it.

If they really want to look out for the consumer, they will make it easier for smaller companies to gain access to various frequency bands. Give consumers choice and this "net neutrality" would never be a serious concern.

[cindy25]

true net neutrality maybe but Obama's proposal is not that.

[juleswin]

No to net neutrality but yes to +rep neutrality i.e the principle that the fellow rpf members (i.e. Todd, Angelica, etc.), should not have the ability to discriminate against the different post content. Reps for everybody \o/

But seriously I am always weary when someone tries to propose a radical solution to a non problem. I mean how is any of this any problem at the moment. Also when they say discriminate against certain content providers, does that mean ISPs cannot discriminated based on price? I say no to net neutrality cos I think net neutrality is a solution looking for a non existent problem.

[kpitcher]

Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.

Oh boo hoo AT&T, Verizon and other government mandated monopolies, they're doing this stunt until the press is over and then continue rolling things out. Telco's pulled the exact same thing back in the early 2000s to get rid of the 1996 telco reform that mandated non-monopoly companies to be able to cross connect to existing telco lines. They said there was no reason to innovate because competition would exist and they wouldn't be assured of making money. Bush got elected, Powell's kid was put in charge of the FCC, '96 telco reform was rolled back. Guess what? The telco's didn't suddenly start rolling out broadband.

If this was real free market then I'd say let companies decide what they offer and let the consumer choose. However the ILECs are government mandated monopolies, the baby bells have defined regions. Then you have cable which is a whole other sort of monopoly with cities having signed exclusive deals to the cable companies having agreements not to go into each other's turf (One of the CEOs said exactly that during a merger talk recently). The question is actually

"Do we let monopolies extort even more money by charging both sides of the internet pipe"

PS. Where is our 300 billion in improvements we already paid for?

[Lucille]

So who are the six useful idiots?

[Suzanimal]

So who are the six useful idiots?

Exactly what I was wondering...

[Keith and stuff]

I an opposed to the plan that the left and statist Republicans are pushing to increase regulations, fees, and taxes on the Internet.

[CaptUSA]

So let's see...

There is a problem that doesn't really exist, but the government would really like to be able to have the legal authority to regulate the internet. Let's come up with a problem that may potentially exist in the future if we don't regulate it now.

Who in their right mind would think this is a good idea? I know some may want to take sides against one industry or another, but this is about finding a new way to make businesses have to cough up money to influence the politicians.

I've always said that the problem with money in politics has nothing to do with businesses trying to buy influence, it's that the politicians have something to sell - the ability to pick winners and losers in the economy. "Net neutrality" has nothing to do with making the internet "neutral" and everything to do with giving politicians something else to sell.

[charrob]

This is an issue that I don’t understand fully; however, from what I do understand ‘Net Neutrality’ to mean, I think that I’m for it, but am open to be corrected if i'm wrong and not understanding the issue completely.

If Net Neutrality means that the ISPs cannot treat content providers differently, than I am for it (and, so, voted ‘yes’ in the poll).

If networks are just data packets going over the pipelines, it should be the consumer that pays more if more of those data packets are downloaded to his home computer. But the content provider, imho, should not be affected.

ISPs, as well as the Feds, should not be able to ever look inside those pipelines to differentiate or view content. It should be a black box.

Some say why have Net Neutrality if the internet works fine? But I’d ask, is it really fair for Netflix to have to pay more when Comcast (who owns both pipes and content) can give themselves (or anyone else they want) a break for the same amount of data packets going over the wires? This leads to internet fast lanes where those content providers who can afford it pay more; while another startup content provider who is, say, trying to compete with Netflix and Comcast would not be able to afford the fast lanes. Also, with more money coming in, it gives the ISPs an incentive to continue developing fast lanes while ignoring the lower priced slow lanes.

This is a monopoly – wires going through public and private lands to reach homes.

The consumer who downloads huge numbers of data packets to their homes should be charged more, not the content provider. Otherwise small startup content providers with little cash on hand to pay for fast lanes will never be able to compete with the already established content providers.

[TheCount]

If Net Neutrality means that the ISPs cannot treat content providers differently, than I am for it (and, so, voted ‘yes’ in the poll).

This is my understanding of the term, and is why I voted the same as you.

[Dianne]

I want the Federal Government out of my life completely. I don't want the Federal Government spying on me, raping my bank accounts, searching my Grandma's granny panties, telling me what to eat, when to sleep, what to drink, what to smoke, when to wake up, when to go to sleep. Especially some jack legged flim flam man like Obama and his bhole buddy Holder who couldn't pass a drug test to save their lives.

You talk about the fastest way to have half the Congress leave office.... announce surprise drug tests.. Bet 30% of Congress can't pass a Walmart employee drug test.

[parocks]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really $#@!ed things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

[MrGoose]

I voted yes.

I don't want my favorite websites throttled, or outright blocked (has happened before temporarily).

[juleswin]

Complicated issue.

1) We've had "net neutrality" all along. The FCC has always had rules, and the specific rules that we've always had have equalled "net neutrality". I didn't have any complaints about those "net neutrality" rules. I would like back the "net neutrality" that we've always had.

2) But then there was a court case decided earlier this year that ruled that the FCC couldn't just keep doing what they had always been doing, that everyone was pretty much happy with.

3) All the hubbub we have right now, all the need to make changes, new FCC rules, is a result of the old FCC rules being struck down by the court. Ideally, to me at least, it would have been best if the FCC rules were upheld, and the internet could keep on going just like it was. But that's not possible.

4) Right now, we're being presented with 2 options, both worse than before, I'd argue. Option 1 is the "use the 1996 act" Apparently this option does not allow the use of "net neutrality" as we have always had it. Option 2 is the "use the 1934 telecommunications act" and treat broadband as a "common carrier". This is what I think Obama's proposal consists of. The downside of this is a new tax on the internet, some have argued. I like net neutrality the way it was, but the way it was didn't have taxes.

5) What about the S Ct stepping in and basically saying "it was fine the way it was". That's the best outcome, looked at quickly. But for some reason, it's not being discussed, or, more accurately, I have no idea why that isn't happening.

My general preference is for net neutrality. Net neutrality prevents your ISP from cutting off access to the websites we like. Oh, we don't like Rand Paul, we're going to shut off access to his website. Or whatever bad outcome there could be from that.

If the internet is treated like a common carrier, it means that the internet is seen as like the telephone system. They don't disconnect your calls if they don't like who you're talking to. All the calls are treated the same and you can access any number.

It's pretty easy to see how cable companies can start selling some sort of internet-like set of websites you can access - maybe easily through the tv. And all the websites are paying the cable company, and they have a financial incentive to sell this internet like packet - push it push it, trying to trick people to buy that package, and you get get the continued oligopoly push that the internet is a counterpoint to.

That court decision earlier this year really $#@!ed things up and now we're seeming to have to choose between 2 worse options.

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.

[MrGoose]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wir...ticle17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/547...-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/ne...-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

[parocks]

I find it just weird that we've had net neutrality all along without having any net neutrality. And then you claim that there was a court ruling that just went against net neutrality and that is the reason why we need net neutrality now. But how does it explain the fact that Obama and his cronies have been pushing net neutrality even before he was elected president? What was the problem then?

I truly sympathize with those who are afraid of the comcasts of this world slowing down connection to ACLU.com, mises.com etc but which is more likely? the govt slowing down anti govt websites or comcast slowing down anti govt websites? Get the govt to start policing the internet whatever it is you are afraid off will be 10x worse than it is now.

And even if your fears of ISP controlling the internet, then the solution should be trying to open up the industry for more competition and not surrendering regulations to the biggest monopoly in town. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem and I am not willing to supporting messing with a successful thing like the internet if it ain't broke.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

There are issues involved here. You don't seem to know what they are.

My description of what's happening is pretty much on the money. I just did this research and I'm not saying that things are going to be better, it doesn't look that way, but "net neutrality" is what what we've had, and there was a court case - here's a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon...mission_(2014)

which is forcing some action at this point. I'd've preferred that we just keep doing what we were doing 1 year ago, but the court case requires some sort of action.

My general tendency is to prefer net neutrality, what we've had.

This is from the above link.

"In response to the FCC's decision of not appealing but establishing new rules, James P. Tuthill, an attorney and lecturer of UC Berkeley School of Law, criticized the decision as the agency could appeal the Supreme Court to seek review, and the Court would likely accept the case because of the significance of the issues and a request by a federal agency."

I think that's close to where my position on this is right now. We had it pretty good before, and if the S Ct simply said "emanations, penumbra, FCC, you're fine" we'd basically have the FCC continuing to do what it has been doing, which is coming up with rules with a foundation in "net neutrality."

"Net neutrality" is a general concept or philosophy, like freedom, and not a specific law.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

No, leave the internet alone.

[MrGoose]

I don't think a lot of you guys fully understand what Net Neutrality does.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

[juleswin]

I just watched the ReasonTV video you posted and I think it's quite a load of BS.

1. The video states that ISPs have never throttled or blocked content. This is false.

http://www.dailytech.com/Verizon+Wir...ticle17624.htm
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/5/547...-hbo-go-on-ps3
http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/ne...-end-slowdown/

2. It then states that if an ISP did block content, then consumers would simply go to another ISP.

Unfortunately most Americans only have access to one ISP. It's an oligopoly.


I'm quite surprised so many people here are against it. Especially considering I thought many of you were tech savvy. I really hope the FCC goes through with this.

First of all, I don't think the video actually said ISPs have never throttled or blocked websites. But even if they did, so what? if you don't like it, unsubscribe and join a different service or maybe completely get off the internet. The ISPs don't owe you anything. Also if you net neutrality supporters believe that this new law that has been pushed by all sorts of authoritarian liberals since 2006 is to keep the "net neutrality" law we have now, how come the ISPs were able to throttle or block internet sites in the past when we had a de facto net neutrality? You just cannot have it both ways

Also this stupid line that most Americans only have one choice for ISP is a big lie. Most people in big and average US cities (where the majority of Americans live) already have more than 1 choice for ISP. I have 4+ different options in little ole Omaha.

Just one last thing, I do not believe a word coming from Moot the liberal, gamergate censoring, social justice warrior guy, him saying that his crappy website was blocked for a few hours is just his word. And even if he is correct, then his problem was easily resolved without any net neutrality laws.

So until we see that nightmare scenario you net neutrality advocates are scared about for at least 2 yrs, I say we leave things the way it is now. No invitation to the FCC to regulate any more of the internet. I get really suspicious when scare tactic is used to scare me into preemptively supporting a solution before the problem is upon us.

[juleswin]

Net-neutrality, until, giant corporations are no longer in bed with the government.
In theory I am against the principle of net-neutrality but in reality? I don't know how it would work out.

I could write an essay about it, which I am not going to. This is just how I currently feel about it.
I trust these giant corporations just as much as the government and that is not a whole lot.

I dunno if I should laugh or cry after reading your post. I am just wondering if your problem is that big giant corporations are not in bed with govt and you want them in bed with government. Cos net neutrality does just that which you seem to be again in your post but will lead to just that with your support of net neutrality.