So long Net Neutrality!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama pushing to reclassify internet/mobile broadband as a public utility.

The White House Is Backing Strong Open Internet Rules : All Tech Considered : NPR

[kcchief19]

If I could cross-post this to political threads I would in. In other news, Ted Cruz denounces Net Neutrality as "Obamacare for the Internet," torpedoes 2016 presidential bid before it ever starts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102170163

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If I could cross-post this to political threads I would in. In other news, Ted Cruz denounces Net Neutrality as "Obamacare for the Internet," torpedoes 2016 presidential bid before it ever starts.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102170163

Wow - what a clueless buffoon.

Or a mendacious, dissembling, snake-oil salesmen.

Take your pick.

[SirFozzie]

Why not both?

[Buccaneer]

So despite earlier discussions that this is not cut and dried, it suddenly has become such?

[claphamsa]

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

Dear Senator Ted Cruz, I'm going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works - The Oatmeal

loved it!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So despite earlier discussions that this is not cut and dried, it suddenly has become such?

What isn't cut and dried is "the proper approach to preserving net neutrality."

What is cut and dried is that if net neutrality enforcement is gutted, the only people who benefit will be telecom bean counters. Ultimately, end users will pay more if telecoms are allowed to create pay lanes. Either they'll sell internet access to the end user cable TV style, or they'll charge the businesses for access to the users, and the businesses will pass those costs on.

Ted Cruz's stance here is essentially akin to government using public dollars to pay for a road and then turning around and handing the road over to a private entity to profit off of the public for no reason other than JOB CREATORS or some shit.

[RainMaker]

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

Or at least substantially less of a big deal

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The removal of net neutrality wouldn't be a big deal if there was competition in the ISP space.

Off the top of my head sitting here I can choose from AT&T, Charter plus at least 1-2 satellite driven options (which I'm pretty sure suck but they still exists).

While that's not a cornucopia of choices, it's not a monopoly either.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Off the top of my head sitting here I can choose from AT&T, Charter plus at least 1-2 satellite driven options (which I'm pretty sure suck but they still exists).

While that's not a cornucopia of choices, it's not a monopoly either.

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

2 is not a monopoly however, especially if they aren't acting in collusion (and Charter vs AT&T has too much competitive smack talk for me to think that's the case)

It's not like, say, cable television where it's still one & only one option here. That's really the only point I was shooting for. Although three miles up/down the highway here give or take, U-Verse breaks that monotony up a bit.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

2 is not a monopoly however, especially if they aren't acting in collusion (and Charter vs AT&T has too much competitive smack talk for me to think that's the case)

It's not like, say, cable television where it's still one & only one option here. That's really the only point I was shooting for. Although three miles up/down the highway here give or take, U-Verse breaks that monotony up a bit.

It's strange that in every place I've lived that the price for the cable company and former phone company is almost identical. I mean, seriously, when I was looking a year ago in Houston, literally the only difference in prices for the main two plans (cable/internet and cable/internet/phone) was Comcast charging $50 more than AT&T for installation: plans the same, additional cable boxes the same, HDDVR the same.

That sounds a lot like collusion to me. Even if it's not active collusion, it's two sides perfectly content to not really compete because both make a ton of money on the model. And it was like this in Richmond after FIOS went through their initial promo blitz to get into the area. Indy was not for me because where we lived, Comcast was my only option.

SI

[PilotMan]

Deregulation in the airlines was just awesome and there's never been any collusion there!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Just to give a contrasting example, I obviously have Google Fiber incoming. The existing options are Time Warner and Uverse. Uverse is the better option IMO currently. Had a friend call Uverse and mention that Google Fiber is on the way and he's looking to switch. Uverse offered all movie channels for free for one year plus the upper tier for free for one year. Basically was over $200 worth of service for around $79/month.

Another friend did the same thing and was offered all movie channels free for one year plus free basic internet service.

Moral of the story: If you get a legitimate provider in your area to compete with the big dogs, they suddenly have a problem that results in them giving away the farm to remain competitive.

[PilotMan]

So a legitimate competitor is really only legit because they are a massive, multilayer conglomeration with a market cap of over 370 billion.

Not exactly your mom and pop business, not exactly a grass roots business building it's way up with a better product. The only way that the others even care is because GOOG is such a giant and has the ability to put something together like Fiber. TW has a cap of 65B while ATT has a cap of 181B. It's all about the Benjamins.

[RainMaker]

A large chunk of the country has only 1 provider available (think it's like 30%). And that includes major cities. A lot of the ISPs also work in collusion to either avoid areas or share costs. Local governments deserve some blame in this whole mess too.

Regardless, there isn't enough competition to eliminate net neutrality in my mind. Especially with such a low barrier for entry.

I'd also add that if they want to eliminate net neutrality, we should eliminate all subsidies. You want a free market on your infrastructure, then you should pay for your infrastructure without taxpayer help. Can't have it both ways.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A large chunk of the country has only 1 provider available (think it's like 30%). And that includes major cities. A lot of the ISPs also work in collusion to either avoid areas or share costs. Local governments deserve some blame in this whole mess too.

If you define 'local' as 'state,' yeah. There are cities that have tried to do internet offerings on a local level, and the ISPs have gone to the states to say "Here's a check for your next campaign and by the way would you do something about those cities that want to offer free wi-fi access?"

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Moral of the story: If you get a legitimate provider in your area to compete with the big dogs, they suddenly have a problem that results in them giving away the farm to remain competitive.

And I don't want any of the things they're offering if it means Netflix is throttled by every ISP because that's just good business, until Netflix pays the extra fees to get that pipe open. And then when that happens, all of them create a "netflix tier" that's $20/mo more if you want Netflix to function. Similar thing with Youtube, especially since its owned by Google now.

[Dutch]

I hope to God to never see shit like Xfinity...that is the devil's work and whatever I need to support to crush that....I'm in.

[sooner333]

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

So, to be fair, you have 2 you know of. Shitty satellite internet access is not internet access.

There are numerous people at my office who have 1 option only. I have 3. At my prior address, I had 1 option until about 6 months before I moved.

There is a decent number of areas that have 1 or 2 options, total. And that choice usually winds up being Cable or DSL. It's as close to a monopoly as you're gonna get.

It's a type of oligopoly called a duopoly and it's not much better than a monopoly usually. Collusion doesn't need to be explicit to set the market.

[PilotMan]

https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedC...41819565930347

I just got lost for 30 minutes in the comments section.

[JonInMiddleGA]

"Internet as utility" , as a concept, does nothing to insure -- or create -- additional competition. If anything, it makes it seem less likely.

Or do I have choices for my electric and water service I'm not aware of?

As much as anything, the framing of the issue creates opposition.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Internet as utility" , as a concept, does nothing to insure -- or create -- additional competition. If anything, it makes it seem less likely.

Or do I have choices for my electric and water service I'm not aware of?

As much as anything, the framing of the issue creates opposition.

So are you against the concept, or are you just saying that the framing of it is poor?

[PilotMan]

It doesn't need competition. It needs to be something that everyone has access to. It's too ingrained in the economy of life. It saves money and provides access to many things the middle and lower classes wouldn't be able to afford.

Why does there have to be competition for access to something that should be seen as a basic societal need? It was created and is still created by the masses. Why should companies have control over it just because they have the infrastructure that delivers it?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It doesn't need competition. It needs to be something that everyone has access to. It's too ingrained in the economy of life. It saves money and provides access to many things the middle and lower classes wouldn't be able to afford.

Why does there have to be competition for access to something that should be seen as a basic societal need? It was created and is still created by the masses. Why should companies have control over it just because they have the infrastructure that delivers it?

Because that's the way the system is setup. We don't have a government-controlled ISP. The network is privately built, so therefore in order to ensure that everyone has access to it there needs to be measures in place to prevent price-gouging of consumers, right?

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by sooner333

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

I don't think that is the issue. The issue is that I am paying my ISP for 250gb of data a month at X speed (in my case it's 50mbps.) However if I choose to use that data with Netflix, my ISP throttles my data and I end up getting a much slower speed....unless Netflix pays up. But what if Netflix doesn't pay up? Do I get a refund on speed? I definitely upgraded my speed twice.

Without Net Nuetrility this is legal and it is actually happening now. It doesn't matter which ISP I choose. Every one in my area (all two of them) are throttling Netflix. Even if I'm 200+Gb below my cap each month.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So are you against the concept, or are you just saying that the framing of it is poor?

In the absence of specific detailed proposals (that I've seen) of what constitutes "one side or the other", I'm making the observation that I believe the framing this week by Obama was poor. Positioning it as "like a utility" (which seems to be the narrative if not a direct quote) does exactly nothing to reassure somebody like me.

Namely, someone who is fairly open to net neutrality concepts (f 'da party lines) as long as it can be made to appear both fiscally & regulatory reasonable. Saying "utility" conjures neither fiscal nor regulatory reasonable to me.

edit to add: I get the fuck gouged out of me on water rates by governmentally controlled "utilities". I've had a geographic monopoly on electricity, legally mandated in Georgia (is that true everywhere?), with at best questionable pricing, for my entire life. I've seen telephone service & pricing go to hell for years after deregulation, only now really seeing perhaps that situation start to finally turn to the consumer (now that we barely use landlines). Cable we've already addressed. See why I'm loathe to have the internet become a "utility"?

[DaddyTorgo]

So it's the framing - in which case I agree with you. "Like a utility" is not the best way to frame it to get bipartisan popular support.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

"Obama saying it" is not the best way to get bipartisan popular support.

FTFY

I think the utility analogy is the best one to use. You flip a light switch, you expect the lights to come on. You turn on a faucet, you expect water to come out. You pick up a phone, you expect a dial tone. The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Internet has become pervasive and intertwined enough that is should act as dependable and reliable as other utilities that are part of our daily lives, and be held to those standards.

So overpriced & under responsive, with little to no concern aside from how to screw us all out of every dime possible?

Sounds fun.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So overpriced & under responsive, with little to no concern aside from how to screw us all out of every dime possible?

Sounds fun.

Not everything can be as fun as sitting around complaining about everything, drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not everything can be as fun as sitting around complaining about everything, drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes.

Well of course not.

But aside from pricing -- and then only maybe -- I hold my ISP in higher regard than I hold most of the utilities I've dealt with in the past 30 years. That's all I'm saying.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well of course not.

But aside from pricing -- and then only maybe -- I hold my ISP in higher regard than I hold most of the utilities I've dealt with in the past 30 years. That's all I'm saying.

Most people don't though. The cable companies consistently rank at the top of the most hated companies in America list.

Maybe it's different here, but I rarely have issues with my utilities. Once in a blue moon the power will go out during a bad storm. Never had an issue with water or gas either. And we get some brutal winters in Chicago.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sooner333

What does Netflix do to pay for the infrastructure?

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Most people don't though. The cable companies consistently rank at the top of the most hated companies in America list.

Maybe it's different here, but I rarely have issues with my utilities. Once in a blue moon the power will go out during a bad storm. Never had an issue with water or gas either. And we get some brutal winters in Chicago.

Water rates in some areas -- like the little town I lived in when I first arrived to the FOFC -- are crippling for small business. It's not usage, we're talking about a tiny clothing store or a cell phone store in a tiny storefront. Ditto homeowners, with a basic rate unaffected by usage of $60/month, if you never use a drop. Likewise the cost of electricity.

Truth is, cable companies never entered my mind when we talk about "utilities", I haven't been a cable customer in over 20 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nothing. They aren't selling internet access. They are selling a service for people with internet access. This is like complaining that Apple isn't pitching in for the cost of the power lines because people use electricity to power their phones.

Okay, just for discussion, let's run with that analogy a second.

If electrical demand exceeds certain boundaries (which can happen in the summer in particular), the power company has the ability & the right to restrict -- through rolling blackouts -- supply to their customers.

Likewise water use restrictions (although to a lesser extent since it's a more exhaustible commodity).

But if those restrictions can exist, then why can't bandwidth limits?

[Buccaneer]

I would say that utilities is more of a basic right than internet and even with utilities, significant restrictions on its usage and availability can apply. Just like with water here in the arid West, it's better to restrict all people to a little usage than to allow a wide-open spigot (which the irrigationists would consume all just for themselves if allowed). My company has applied both restrictions during the drought years and with the last one, a three-tiered rate system solely based on usage.

[Buccaneer]

Frankly, I had assumed that we would have gone to a pay-for-site model a long time ago. But I had underestimated the public's demand/tolerance/interest for ads (which seems to have been paying for the infrastructure growth, along with high cable/satellite fees).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Frankly, I had assumed that we would have gone to a pay-for-site model a long time ago. But I had underestimated the public's demand/tolerance/interest for ads (which seems to have been paying for the infrastructure growth, along with high cable/satellite fees).

Forrester: US Online Display Ad Spending will Nearly Double by 2019 - CMO Today - WSJ

Add that new focus on video ads (as opposed to static display ads) to the demands on bandwidth. 30-60 secs, 30-60 there, it starts to add up.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, just for discussion, let's run with that analogy a second.

If electrical demand exceeds certain boundaries (which can happen in the summer in particular), the power company has the ability & the right to restrict -- through rolling blackouts -- supply to their customers.

Likewise water use restrictions (although to a lesser extent since it's a more exhaustible commodity).

But if those restrictions can exist, then why can't bandwidth limits?

Electrical companies are heavily regulated to protect consumers from pricing that would be exorbitant.

Now I have no problem with a pay for use system. It makes sense that the person using 500gb a month pay more than the person using 10gb. But with no real competition in the marketplace, the pricing will never be fair for a service that is becoming a necessity.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

So you'd pay to come here, right?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Ok, make that greatly underestimated. I still don't understand how people can tolerate ads (static or video) but I guess that's always been the price to pay for broadcasting and access.

fwiw I don't get it either. With the exception of a couple of sites, if I can't thoroughly AdBlock you, I ain't visiting.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So you'd pay to come here, right?

No, I wouldn't, much like a lot of things in my life I can do without and had left behind. Many other sites I would not go to if pay, FOFC would be one of the last though. I pay Comcast for email, my bank for online banking and Verizon for stuff on my Apple devices. Don't really need (as oppose to want/desire) anything else.

[Buccaneer]

To expand, I grew watching a lot of TV until I got sick of commercials, esp. during sporting events. I don't do premium cable (not worth the money, imo). So I pretty much left TV behind, which is no more of "right" than internet is. I think it's an amazing privilege to have stuff like youtube and online news/sports sites, not to mention interactive forums and instant access to games via steam et al but none of them are essential, no more than TV is. For iOS products, I have strongly favored paying for them to make them ad-free as oppose to the IAP model but unfortunately, a lot of them don't give you that choice.

[JPhillips]

I think internet is becoming a necessity if not a right. It's impossible for me to conceive of my daughter's homework with the internet and finding a job not in my local community would also be very difficult. Lots of things just aren't published in a hardcopy form anymore.

[RainMaker]

Jobs, employment searching, banking, schools, medicine, and most of our daily social interactions aren't moving toward TV though. I think the internet would be closer to the phone company than to TV.