The Net Neutrality Sellout: Still Bad, But What's Next?

[hentropy]

I've been on The Escapist for some time and I haven't seen this guy write anything before.

You can find quite a few of his prior articles on the Escapist. Hardly his fault.

But more to the point:

I do agree insofar that the internet SHOULD be classified as a utility- but I guess I'm the only person on the internet that thinks the rules aren't armageddon and that Tom Wheeler isn't some kind of seven-headed marine dragon. The main fight when it comes to Net Neutrality should be focused around that no other websites should be closed off or purposefully slowed. It seems like Wheeler, a guy the author repeatedly complained was "their guy", is open to this. Speeding up the internet for certain sites willing to pay is not ideal, but it's also not the end of everything nice.

To me, at least, it seems unlikely that telecoms will even want to block or slow down certain sites, it would just frustrate consumers and drive more competition into the market. Even with the anti-competitive practices, there's still different ISPs out there, and being the "open" one will be a consumer draw. For all the scare-mongering that people have done about telecoms, I haven't once heard the open desire to do this. They're adamant about a fast lane because it seems like a win-win for the telecoms, they get more money from big websites that want to go faster and most people's experiences don't change significantly.

Since Net Neutrality was shut down, Comcast has started throttling traffic on streaming sites. I don't know for sure, but based on responses from Comcast users, I suspect they're also throttling gaming bandwidth. There's no hypothetical. It's already happening. Further, Comcast and Time Warner have market dominance in a good chunk of the US, sometimes being the only game in town for any intents and purposes. And let's not forget, Comcast is seeking to purchase Time Warner.

What you propose might be logical if there was a fair and competitive market, but there isn't. And really, Comcast and TWC got here by having the money to consume the competition, so where exactly do you propose the competition is going to come from?

That's why efforts should be focused on improving competition in the market, rather than beg the government to impose more regulations that will just be defeated in court anyway.

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality". I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't I just don't give a fuck if I'm wrong

Then why bother commenting at all if you don't care?

That's why efforts should be focused on improving competition in the market, rather than beg the government to impose more regulations that will just be defeated in court anyway.

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality".

Well, filtering malicious/junk traffic is fair since all it does is inhibit everyone's usage.
But the issue here is about Comcast throttling LEGITIMATE traffic, and that's especially problematic when it's traffic everyone is already paying for.

I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

No, it is completely unreasonable when they are selling dedicated RATES of throughput.
When they throttle those rates intentionally, they are literally, unquestionably, ripping you off.

 

[Something Amyss]

That's why efforts should be focused on improving competition in the market, rather than beg the government to impose more regulations that will just be defeated in court anyway.

How do you actually propose doing that?

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality". I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

It is when you've been providing a service that advertises its speed. It's completely unreasonable.

 

[hentropy]

That's why efforts should be focused on improving competition in the market, rather than beg the government to impose more regulations that will just be defeated in court anyway.

How do you actually propose doing that?

It's not easy but it's not unheard of, it's called removing barriers to entry for competition. It's much more complicated than in other industries, it's true, but most western European markets have plenty of competition. There shouldn't be a single market in the US where you only have one choice of broadband provider, which is the case in many right now. I fear classifying it as a utility might actually cut down on competition, and make "pay for how much you use" more standard, being counter to what consumers really want. Then they'd be begging for something as simple and convenient like an optional fast lane.

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality". I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

It is when you've been providing a service that advertises its speed. It's completely unreasonable.

That's a point, but my point was that it's not like net neutrality means awesome universal service. It just means that companies are forbidden to charge more if you want faster speeds for things like gaming, which in any other industry would be considered reasonable, but because of this absolutist philosophy on net neutrality, they can't legally do it. Throttling certain kinds of connections and data types happens because ISPs are forced to treat someone playing a data-heavy online game all day the same as someone who has kept their computer off the day.

 

[marcooos]

I don't I just don't give a fuck if I'm wrong

Then why bother commenting at all if you don't care?

That's why efforts should be focused on improving competition in the market, rather than beg the government to impose more regulations that will just be defeated in court anyway.

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality".

Well, filtering malicious/junk traffic is fair since all it does is inhibit everyone's usage.
But the issue here is about Comcast throttling LEGITIMATE traffic, and that's especially problematic when it's traffic everyone is already paying for.

I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

No, it is completely unreasonable when they are selling dedicated RATES of throughput.
When they throttle those rates intentionally, they are literally, unquestionably, ripping you off.

Because every couple of months the internet has some new "existential threat" an everyone hops on the panic train. I just wanted to see if anyone else has realised this whole net neutrality thing doesn't matter in the slightest

 

[SexyGarfield]

Also, Comcast has been throttling and controlling their networks in such ways for a decade or more, as the NPRM points out, it's just been based on a variety of other factors that are legal under "net neutrality". I've been unable to effectively play many online games in the past due to throttling. If I could pay to get it better, I would, it's not unreasonable to ask gamers to pay more when they're using 500x the ISP's resources as a grandma surfing eBay.

It is when you've been providing a service that advertises its speed. It's completely unreasonable.

That's a point, but my point was that it's not like net neutrality means awesome universal service. It just means that companies are forbidden to charge more if you want faster speeds for things like gaming, which in any other industry would be considered reasonable, but because of this absolutist philosophy on net neutrality, they can't legally do it. Throttling certain kinds of connections and data types happens because ISPs are forced to treat someone playing a data-heavy online game all day the same as someone who has kept their computer off the day.

It would make sense but bandwidth and data usage cost ISPs very little compared to upkeep of the infrastructure used to deliver service to all. This infrastructure is needed by every customer equally in order to receive any service at all and needs to be of equal bandwidth capabilities if the ISPs want to be able to offer tiered service packages (they do). When ISPs lay these lines or do upgrades they often make the municipality they are doing the work in sign exclusivity contracts and do not share their line with other potential cable operators, that's the main reason you only see one cable provider in any given town. The tiered usage plans Comcast has rolled out [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Starts-Tinkering-With-5-GB-Usage-Caps-125204] based on monthly data usage prove that delivering fifty gigabytes (average household usage circa 2012 [couldn't find a more recent stat but I am sure it's higher now]) is almost the same cost as delivering five. Ten percent off my bill if I keep my data usage at one tenth that of the average user? What a savings, my netflix streaming must be breaking the bank over at the poor ol' ISP!

The double dipping strategy ISPs are going for is purely a move to consolidate power and fatten up already sickeningly obese profit margins. If I had my way I would break up the major ISPs into localities much like the feds did with the bell system and grant ownership of the lines to what ever municipality they resided in for said municipalities to lease (non-exclusive) access to any provider that wanted to operate within them. The money gained from leasing the lines will go towards upkeep of the infrastructure and it would foster competition because ISPs would not need to lay their own cable, the most expensive barrier to entry currently in the US market.

P.S. Fifty dollars a month isn't even what I pay for Comcast here, my bill is closer to ninety for the basic home user package because they are the only game in town and they know they can get away with it. I don't even live in a rural area, we have a population of over sixty thousand and have half a dozen cities just as big (or bigger) within 10 miles a couple of cities with around half a million are within about thirty miles.

 

[SexyGarfield]

Double post, ignore this.

 

[Aramis Night]

I don't go to his channel often but on occasion he makes a good point and this is definitely a strong one.


I also found this article very relevant:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-kushnick/billions-in-customer-overcharging_b_1958875.html

 

[Atmos Duality]

Because every couple of months the internet has some new "existential threat" an everyone hops on the panic train. I just wanted to see if anyone else has realised this whole net neutrality thing doesn't matter in the slightest

Right, because legislature that changes the entire dynamic of how throughput is sold on the internet for the benefit of a select few "doesn't matter".

I could almost applaud such arrogance were your position not utterly steeped in ignorance, given the MOUNTAIN of evidence of why this is an issue is right in front of you.

But that's fine, I'm sure you have a reason to dismiss it and everyone who cares about it.
What that reason is, I, as a mere mortal, can only guess at since you have yet to actually provide something other than "Well, other threats didn't pan out, so why should this one?"

..Never mind that such a position requires ignoring the enormous public backlash it took to stop legislation like SOPA and PIPA in the first place; but hey, why acknowledge that which you can happily ignore? After all, what you ignore cannot possibly effect you, right?

It must be boring in that lofty fantasy land you hail from, since despite caring so little about the issue you still saw fit to descend from your ivory tower in the heavens and decree the subject irrelevant; lest the poor silly flock be driven into a panic.

Or at least, that's the interpretation I'm taking.

 

[Fasckira]

That was three days after cops in a london subway station shot and killed a man for attempting to run away.
Cops saw an arabian looking man with a backpack. Cops yell "Freeze!" and he takes off. Cops shoot him four times.

They never found out why he tried to run, was kinda hard to ask him.

I need to point out that there is a bit more to this story: the day previously there had been a failed bombing on the underground with the victim resembling one of the suspects. Two weeks previously there had been a bombing with over 50 people being killed, so I think its reasonable to assume why the police were over-zealous.

I do agree that the police were wrong in the example, there we so many balls-ups in the whole thing with it basically boiling down to "Police were told to stop the suspect entering the tube station yet there he was on the tube station the very next day, shoot first before he blows up another 50-odd people.".

Theres a lot more to the story though (which is the point Im getting to), just felt the need to clarify that.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Cool be rude then.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm aware how this will affect me thank you and I'm ok with it. Unless you can explain without being a sarcastic bastard why I should care so deeply about this?

I can't force you to care.
In fact you seem determined to prove that being apathetically smug is "correct" for whatever reason.

But here is why I care:

Summary: The "Fast Lane" policy that the FCC is pushing for will ultimately result in much higher prices on internet services across the board, and establishment of selective monopolies for content producers to maintain those prices based on legal speed throttling and government cronyism.

Why:
"Fast lane" pricing lets ISPs charge for preferential treatment in routing traffic explicitly.
This causes two problems.
1) Content filtering becomes innately legal, where before only malicious/"junk" traffic was legally filtered at the ISP level.

2) The logical side effect of "fast lane" being that they could then legally slow down all other traffic who aren't paying extra.

At a given time there throughput (total traffic delivered per unit time) is finite, therefore an ISP has a finite amount of "priority" they can realistically sell. If you're speeding someone's average throughput up, someone else needs to be throttled down by the same amount (on average; "quiet hours" traffic will result in "normal" speeds).

So if someone else needs to be throttled down to compensate, guess who that will be?
That's right: Everyone who isn't paying for fast lane treatment (read: millions of regular users and smaller businesses).
And the larger the firm who buys priority, the larger the amount of throttling across the board.

That internet service everyone overpays for is about to get cheapened even further. Less-for-more!

Oh, and if you happen to be one of those users of a service paying for said priority (like, say Netflix), expect higher bills because as with everything in this business, the added cost ultimately finds its way to the customer.

The only saving grace in this might be average rates going up across the board over time as ISPs reinvest in their infrastructure...
Except that United States ISPs are notoriously greedy assholes who reinvest into building infrastructure at glacial paces, preferring to instead spend that extra money lobbying to keep newer, better competing services like Fiber Optic out of their territories. Or in lieu of that, putting it into their pocket.

I only need point to the example of the UK ISP market to show disparity (and they aren't even the best, as South Korea and Japan demonstrate). They pay less than the average American does per month and get FAR superior speeds on average too. All because their ISPs are forced to reinvest into their infrastructure to compete.

Oh, and if the FCC gets their way, they will decide through policy what is "commercially acceptable" or not.
Given that the FCC is being run by former Cable company lobbyists it's painfully obvious how quickly that will devolve into corporate cronyism. (it's already happening; this entire proposal and issue started shortly after Obama appointed Mr. Wheeler, a former Cable suit, to head the FCC)

Given how Internet access is now essential to business and culture, giving so much power to so few is a dangerous prospect even we lived in some alternate reality where the companies were upstanding and fair.

I rarely get on board with most "big guvment" scary issues, but knowing what I do about the ISP business (I've worked as network and security engineer for the better part of the last decade) this legitimately frightens me. Just as much as SOPA.

And I'm not the only one, there are a lot of people mad about this, including some very large companies (who admittedly, only care because they have interests opposed to that of the cable giants) that's a very scary prospect.

So at least consider that before dismissing everything with a flip of the hand.