Net neutrality

[benenglish]

Net neutrality has been in the news so I could have put this in the news subforum. However, it's a topic about which I prefer to rant and rave so I'm posting here.

The PW thread had a number of good posts on net neutrality but I think the topic deserves its own thread. Picking up from that other thread:

I don't get why things needed to be changed from the way they are. Was there something wrong with the way things have been? serious question...cause idk

Yeah, the big ISPs weren't making enough money. Something had to change.

BTW, ignore all those other countries where the providers actually compete instead of collude, what with their broadband speeds being double ours and their costs to the end user being half. Those examples prove nothing, absolutely nothing.

</sarcasm>

I don't think the companies want to limit the speed, they just want us to pay more for it.

It's not that simple. They want the "freedom" to limit speed to anyone who competes with them in any way or who becomes successful in any market they'd like to enter.

If the gov can control speed they can start controlling content.

This was a major win for the statists.

The gov won't be doing the controlling. It will be the big carriers doing it, occasionally pulling the strings of gov puppets. Thus, I wouldn’t call this a win for statism unless you equate "big government" with "big business", in which case I completely agree with you.

Understanding net neutrality requires some technical knowledge most people don’t have. Absent that, you have to listen to people talk and, as is always the case when politics, money, and new tech collide, lots of the people talking are lying their asses off.

It was statism for the state to require all carriers of bits to treat them all the same. Now that’s going to change. (Actually, it changed a long time ago for some solid reasons having to do with efficient system administration, but that's where the conversation gets boring and peoples eyes glaze over.) Businesses will now have power that was once vested in the state to determine what they charge. (ETA) More correctly, they'll have the power to pick out some of their customers, say "We don't like you", and proceed to charge those customers a completely different rate structure than everyone else. It's kinda like an all-you-can-eat restaurant deciding what they'll charge you only after they saw how much you ate the last time you came in.

I'd consider that a pushback of statism and a victory for capitalism.

And the little guys are gonna get screwed.

I long for the days when “ISP” meant “DHCP at the jack” and nothing else. It’s been possible to get that for the last decade or so by running a business-class account at home. Now, that option (for any businesses but the largest) is going away, too.

Here’s a non-technical explanation from a source that maybe everyone won’t like, who doesn’t even hit the important technical “gotchas” that I think are the biggest issues. Still, it’s a starting point for people whose response to the news has been “What is net neutrality and why should I care?” Note that the video is a bit old and comes from back when the comment period on the regs was just opening, almost a year ago.

 

[F350-6]

Net neutrality is going to mean the providers can't sell the premium speeds to sponsors or advertisers. That's going to limit income. If the feds also determine what a reasonable price is for high speed internet, then that will set speeds at a maximum, because why invest in expanding the higher speeds if there's not enough reward?

For those of us living out in the country, where is the incentive for a provider to get us better internet if they don't have a way to help offset the cost of providing the service?

 

[Vaquero]

Universal service fund.

Universal Service | FCC.gov

We get to pay more for less so everybody can have some.

 

[Younggun]

Universal service fund.

Universal Service | FCC.gov

We get to pay more for less so everybody can have some.

And even that is a lie.

Not that I think everyone should have a fee to run DSL to my house, but everyone pays the fee and they still don't run it out of the city.

Get rid of the BS tax.

 

[Southpaw]

And even that is a lie.

Not that I think everyone should have a fee to run DSL to my house, but everyone pays the fee and they still don't run it out of the city.

Get rid of the BS tax.

That has more to do with the private telecom companies deciding to not come out your way more so then the fund itself.

 

[TheDan]

Net neutrality is a good example of creating more regulation to "fix" issues that have been caused by previous regulation. One thing is for sure, regulatory compliance lawyers have good job security.

I wouldn’t call this a win for statism unless you equate "big government" with "big business", in which case I completely agree with you.

Those always end up inevitably being the same.

More correctly, they'll have the power to pick out some of their customers, say "We don't like you", and proceed to charge those customers a completely different rate structure than everyone else. It's kinda like an all-you-can-eat restaurant deciding what they'll charge you only after they saw how much you ate the last time you came in.

That is hilarious because proponents of it say it will do the opposite.

 

[TheDan]

That has more to do with the private telecom companies deciding to not come out your way more so then the fund itself.

If you're willing to pay for it, they will come. Laying new lines is very expensive and a regulatory hassle. I've seen some businesses pay tens of thousands to have a cable (as in coax!) line run to their location simply because they were out of the typical service area. If you're serious about it, you could talk to some neighbors and see if everyone in the area would be willing to chip in to get service. With cell coverage the way it is these days, you're better off using a mobile service and directional antenna, or some other wireless service.

 

[benenglish]

Net neutrality is going to mean the providers can't sell the premium speeds to sponsors or advertisers.

Yep. And that's a good thing. That's the way the net started out, with a level playing field for all the players. That's what the government has enforced for a long time. With the death of net neutrality, companies will be able to look at you, say "You look like you can pay more money", and charge you more for the same service they've previously provided.

And make no mistake, that's what they'll do. They won't give faster service to the people they extort; they'll just slow everybody else down, relative to where the optimal network speed should be. They'll open the taps for the people who pay and keep them closed for us peons.

That's going to limit income.

Poor babies. That means the poor provider executives will have to settle for bathroom fixtures made of solid gold instead of crafted from diamonds. My heart bleeds for them.

Seriously, the main limit to their income is their unwillingness to grow the market through competition. Our broadband rankings vs. the rest of the world show that the business can provide more, cost less, and still be enormously profitable. Only competition can spur that, though, and the failure to maintain (government mandated) neutrality in the handling of bits and bytes will allow the current companies to maintain their anti-competitive practices that artificially inflate their earnings without them having to lift a finger to earn the money.

For what we pay in the U.S., every home should have 5 competing providers and fiber to the curb, if not the home. The fact that we don't is proof of just how incredibly screwed up our providers are. Or, to be more accurate, it's proof of how much they're screwing us.

If the feds also determine what a reasonable price is for high speed internet, then that will set speeds at a maximum, because why invest in expanding the higher speeds if there's not enough reward?

The interesting thing about that is the definition of "high speed". In the U.S., the regulatory definition is laughable by the standards of the rest of the world. Why? Because the definition was a direct result of industry lobbying.

There would be plenty of incentive to invest IF the market was competitive. It's not and the changes on the horizon will only make things worse.

For those of us living out in the country, where is the incentive for a provider to get us better internet if they don't have a way to help offset the cost of providing the service?

That's an old and discredited argument. If you're remote, the only reason I don't run wires out to you is that I know no one else will, either. If there's competition, I'll run the wire. Why? Because I'll sign you up and if you build a big business, I'll have a big customer. I'll run the wire because I don't want my competitors to gain that potential advantage.

Granted, there will always be the way-out-in-the-sticks problem. That was a problem for power, for phones, and now for internet. It's an edge case, though, and should not drive policy.

As it is now, the entire industry is severely disincetivized to improve infrastructure. Dismantling net neutrality will allow the providers to continue comfortably running their old infrastructure, charging too much, and putting the excess profits in their pockets.

The monopolies and collusion that plague the industry have developed despite net neutrality working against those outcomes. Remove net neutrality and the situation will rapidly deteriorate.

So another thing is going to hell in a handbasket in the near future. I guess I'll eventually be old enough to no longer be surprised.

 

[benenglish]

That is hilarious because proponents of it say it will do the opposite.

EXCELLENT POINT!

The definition of "net neutrality" is that all the bits get handled the same. Service providers, at whatever level, move the bits at the same speed and for the same rate for everybody, no matter how big or small.

Anything that allows differential pricing is the direct opposite of a neutral net.

It's pretty easy to tell who's lying and who's not by what definition they use. If a two (or multi) tier pricing structure is being advocated, the person pimping that scheme wants to destroy net neutrality...even if they call what they're advocating "net neutrality". One of the smartest moves the bad guys in all this made about a year or two ago was to start blatantly calling their anti-neutrality proposals by the name "net neutrality". That created nothing but confusion. Bad guys love confusion.

 

[TheDan]

For what we pay in the U.S., every home should have 5 competing providers and fiber to the curb, if not the home. The fact that we don't is proof of just how incredibly screwed up our providers are. Or, to be more accurate, it's proof of how much they're screwing us.

Actually it's proof that the regulations don't work. This is the intersection of big business and big government again. The only way a company can truly lock out a competitor is with the force of government. A good example of this is the whole pole debacle with Google and ATT in Austin. ATT was not letting Google use their poles and Google couldn't build their own due to the cluster fluff of telecommunications regulation.

Romania of all places has the fastest and most dense network in the world mostly because their government failed to act quickly enough in regulating it.

 

[TheDan]

The definition of "net neutrality" is that all the bits get handled the same. Service providers, at whatever level, move the bits at the same speed and for the same rate for everybody, no matter how big or small.

You know if this actually happened in reality then calls and video conferencing wouldn't actually be usable.

 

[Renegade]

For those of us living out in the country, where is the incentive for a provider to get us better internet if they don't have a way to help offset the cost of providing the service?

Net Neutrality implemented properly will do that just like it did for telephone, electric in the early days.

The problem is, the govt will screw this up, just like it did for telephone, electric.

 

[benenglish]

You know if this actually happened in reality then calls and video conferencing wouldn't actually be usable.

Of course. That's what I was talking about in the OP when I said:

(Actually, it changed a long time ago for some solid reasons having to do with efficient system administration, but that's where the conversation gets boring and peoples eyes glaze over.)

 

[Renegade]

You know if this actually happened in reality then calls and video conferencing wouldn't actually be usable.

No, RFCs would still be followed.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

They are just setting the stage.

You only make one play at a time. This is an initial step.

Eventually content will be controlled and many updates will have to be "approved" by your government

 

[Renegade]

Eventually content will be controlled and many updates will have to be "approved" by your government

I think so. Give it time. Congress will ban certain types of traffic for the children, national security, etc.

 

[benenglish]

Net Neutrality implemented properly will do that just like it did for telephone, electric in the early days.

You want the Rural Electrification Administration to do for internet what it did for the electricity grid back in the day? I thought we liked less government involvement in markets around here.

The REA, while less than perfect, was generally the way electric service got out to family farms. The market, by itself, wasn't going to do it. And there are some good lessons there about what happens when govt and big business collude to suppress competition. Favored industries get to make big money while basically telling small-timers to go climb a tree.

That can be fixed by govt (as in the REA) or by an unfettered market (such as some of the great examples of rural electric co-ops).

The analogy breaks down for internet, though. Via the collusion of big providers and local govt, most attempts to provide internet service by anything analagous to an electric co-op get strangled in the crib by crushing regulations or even simply being outlawed.

You point to some good historical lessons. Thanks.

 

[benenglish]

They are just setting the stage.

You only make one play at a time. This is an initial step.

Eventually content will be controlled and many updates will have to be "approved" by your government

I think so. Give it time. Congress will ban certain types of traffic for the children, national security, etc.

I wish you guys weren't right...but I think you are.

 

[Renegade]

I wish you guys weren't right...but I think you are.

I am a geek from long ago. I yearn for the internet like it was in the 1980s. NN is marketed as that. But I know it is bait and switch.

 

[benenglish]

Actually it's proof that the regulations don't work. This is the intersection of big business and big government again. The only way a company can truly lock out a competitor is with the force of government.

That, too. Agreed, completely. I think we agree on more than we disagree.

The question now is how we fix the coming mess. How do we remove big business control of government regulation of their own business? How do we foster real competition?

How do we keep the 'net at least as neutral as it is now?

I'm at a loss for answers to those questions.