So long Net Neutrality!

[tarcone]

Where is google fiber? I see that is is not available in my area. But Im 20 miles from a metro area.
How fast are they putting it in the ground?

[Logan]

An Open Letter to the FCC: – Eric Schneiderman – Medium

Yet the process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity.

Specifically, for six months my office has been investigating who perpetrated a massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. Such conduct likely violates state law — yet the FCC has refused multiple requests for crucial evidence in its sole possession that is vital to permit that law enforcement investigation to proceed.

In April 2017, the FCC announced that it would issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning repeal of its existing net neutrality rules. Federal law requires the FCC and all federal agencies to take public comments on proposed rules into account — so it is important that the public comment process actually enable the voices of the millions of individuals and businesses who will be affected to be heard. That’s important no matter one’s position on net neutrality, environmental rules, and so many other areas in which federal agencies regulate.

In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. In doing so, the perpetrator or perpetrators attacked what is supposed to be an open public process by attempting to drown out and negate the views of the real people, businesses, and others who honestly commented on this important issue. Worse, while some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.

My office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers may have had their identities misused in this way. (Indeed, analysis showed that, in all, hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized in the same way, including tens of thousands per state in California, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and possibly others.) Impersonation and other misuse of a person’s identity violates New York law, so my office launched an investigation.

[DanGarion]

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Where is google fiber? I see that is is not available in my area. But Im 20 miles from a metro area.
How fast are they putting it in the ground?

Not fast. The existing ISPs have made it incredibly hard for them to expand. Suing them at every turn.

You're probably better off waiting for 5G but again, that requires some deep fiber that the current ISPs have avoided laying down because they have no competition and certainly don't want to create any.

[Scoobz0202]

As expected, 3-2 vote to repeal.

Sad.

[PilotMan]

So fucking stupid. Nothing like 80+% opposed and it still passes.

[NobodyHere]

Democracy FTW!

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So fucking stupid. Nothing like 80+% opposed and it still passes.

Well, I get why people don't trust ISPs but honestly its just like a la carte. People really don't understand the business they are so eager for the government (that they don't trust, currently anyway) to regulate.

NN does not mean unlimited bandwidth to every user. Originators still (and have always) paid for their bandwidth, access to networks closer to subscribers, and on caching for better performance (depending on what they do). Sometimes that caching is provided by the ISP....is this a "fastlane" or "discriminating" against those who don't cache inside major datacenters because some companies can't/won't pay for it? Well, that exists with/without NN.

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are not monopolies. The difference is that most of us don't have a choice when connecting to the internet. We do have a choice in what services we use online.

[cuervo72]

So Comcast might be able to cut into say, the middle of my reading a WaPo article, or interrupt my looking at FOBL box scores, or interject an ad into my Steam session? Boy, that sounds peachy.

edit: also can't wait for a carrier/content provider dispute, a la Dish/CBS where sites get dropped from service

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Well, I get why people don't trust ISPs but honestly its just like a la carte. People really don't understand the business they are so eager for the government (that they don't trust, currently anyway) to regulate.

NN does not mean unlimited bandwidth to every user. Originators still (and have always) paid for their bandwidth, access to networks closer to subscribers, and on caching for better performance (depending on what they do). Sometimes that caching is provided by the ISP....is this a "fastlane" or "discriminating" against those who don't cache inside major datacenters because some companies can't/won't pay for it? Well, that exists with/without NN.

Meanwhile, the very companies arguing for NN monetize us every day. The net (no pun intended) effect of net neutrality (that the tech giants care about) is that ISPs can now do the same things the Googles, Amazons, Facebooks, etc do by targeting ads to you, and become a massive force in online advertising. Of course there would be opposition to that by the tech giants.

The internet isn't a la carte right now. I don't want to have a subscription level to be able to access certain websites. I don't want to have limits on where I can go, or what I can watch, use, research, or to have to pay extra just to get to those sites.

The internet today is open to people of all demos and social status level. A homeless guy can load up the same pages and sites that the CEO of Exxon can. His access isn't restricted and his options are all open to him.

Now, with the removal of those restrictions the fairness standard for people who can't afford or reach sites that are the highest demand becomes critical. We're taking fair access system and replacing it with a buyer model where pay to play will win the day. It's pretty much the opposite of fairness.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are not monopolies. The difference is that most of us don't have a choice when connecting to the internet. We do have a choice in what services we use online.

Actually most of us do have more than 1 provider. If you live near any metro area you have a choice.

This is from a 2013 Dept of Commerce report. So data speeds are much lower than today.
http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/fil...-providers.pdf

Here's the 2014 Broadband providers interactive map....
Broadband Map - Number of Providers - National Broadband Map

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The internet isn't a la carte right now. I don't want to have a subscription level to be able to access certain websites. I don't want to have limits on where I can go, or what I can watch, use, research, or to have to pay extra just to get to those sites.

The internet today is open to people of all demos and social status level. A homeless guy can load up the same pages and sites that the CEO of Exxon can. His access isn't restricted and his options are all open to him.

Now, with the removal of those restrictions the fairness standard for people who can't afford or reach sites that are the highest demand becomes critical. We're taking fair access system and replacing it with a buyer model where pay to play will win the day. It's pretty much the opposite of fairness.

I was referring to a la carte as in people don't get the economics driving it. ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites. Thats terrible business for a company making their money on giving you access to the internet. Think about it...in metro areas you typically have 2 choices, plus cellular providers. The first one to block websites gets their clock cleaned.

The part I think any reasonable person might find objectionable would be the notion of how people are monetized and packaged for advertising. If you believe in "follow the money" when it comes to businesses that oppose each other on policy, thats the crux of this one. The tech giants prefer to keep their share of the $200B+ online advertising business and ISPs believe they should be able to enter & disrupt that business just as the tech giants are trying to disrupt the video side of their business.

Its an advertising driven business. And while I don't particularly like the datamining thats done on people across the board on the internet, I get it from a business standpoint.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Actually most of us do have more than 1 provider. If you live near any metro area you have a choice.

This is from a 2013 Dept of Commerce report. So data speeds are much lower than today.
http://esa.doc.gov/sites/default/fil...-providers.pdf

Here's the 2014 Broadband providers interactive map....
Broadband Map - Number of Providers - National Broadband Map

This is not true. That document you link to shows how few providers we have at higher speeds. It's also dated as the FCC put out a report in 2015 saying 80% of customers had only 1 high speed option.

Also that document was made before Charter bought Time Warner and Brighthouse which knocked out two of the bigger providers. They are also likely going to acquire Cox soon unless Comcast sneaks in first.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

I was referring to a la carte as in people don't get the economics driving it. ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites. Thats terrible business for a company making their money on giving you access to the internet. Think about it...in metro areas you typically have 2 choices, plus cellular providers. The first one to block websites gets their clock cleaned.

The part I think any reasonable person might find objectionable would be the notion of how people are monetized and packaged for advertising. If you believe in "follow the money" when it comes to businesses that oppose each other on policy, thats the crux of this one. The tech giants prefer to keep their share of the $200B+ online advertising business and ISPs believe they should be able to enter & disrupt that business just as the tech giants are trying to disrupt the video side of their business.

Its an advertising driven business. And while I don't particularly like the datamining thats done on people across the board on the internet, I get it from a business standpoint.

80% of the country doesn't have a choice. Cellular is not comparable at the moment.

And why wouldn't the tech giant want to keep the money? They created the product or service that people want. Why would they share that with a company that had nothing to do with their business?

[SackAttack]

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

[Ben E Lou]

Question: a local-ish ISP put down fiber in my neighborhood recently, and we made the switch to them. How is this expected to impact companies like this and their customers? They're not new (in-laws have used this company for cable/internet since at least 1998,) so clearly they made a go of it before the net neutrality rules, but I have no idea if the last few years helped them get to the point where they could do fiber, either.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

He might be paraphrasing a bit, but this op/ed piece from The Hill is the closest I could find.

Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill

I think this opposition piece from The Wired, is good at explaining the FCC's proposed change in the definition of "High Speed" from 25mpbs to 10mbps and saying it's all good. The money should have been spent to bring a min of 25mbps service to rural areas. Over 100 billion has been allocated to plans and to date, 61% in rural areas have access to that speed. You'd think that a program that has been in place for over 8 years might have done a little better.

https://www.wired.com/story/redefini...n-rural-areas/

[bob]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

He might be paraphrasing a bit, but this op/ed piece from The Hill is the closest I could find.

Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill

I think this opposition piece from The Wired, is good at explaining the FCC's proposed change in the definition of "High Speed" from 25mpbs to 10mbps and saying it's all good. The money should have been spent to bring a min of 25mbps service to rural areas. Over 100 billion has been allocated to plans and to date, 61% in rural areas have access to that speed. You'd think that a program that has been in place for over 8 years might have done a little better.

https://www.wired.com/story/redefini...n-rural-areas/

I live in Roswell Georgia which is far from rural, and my only option is DSL. I'd love 10 Mbps, much less 25. I don't know what I will do if att kills their dsl service, because no one will come install anything better to my house (neither Comcast or Att)

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is not true. That document you link to shows how few providers we have at higher speeds. It's also dated as the FCC put out a report in 2015 saying 80% of customers had only 1 high speed option.

Also that document was made before Charter bought Time Warner and Brighthouse which knocked out two of the bigger providers. They are also likely going to acquire Cox soon unless Comcast sneaks in first.

Would you be so kind as to link to your source? Because I think you're conflating 2 separate concepts.

There is only 1 CATV provider for the vast majorioty. But there is CATV, TELCO, plus DISH ISPs in addition to Cellular (which a lot of people are just using in lieu of hardwired).

Comcast & TWC did not compete because neither can make a business model entering the same markets when there is already a 3rd provider (typicallyu Verizon or AT&T or Centurylink).

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

80% of the country doesn't have a choice. Cellular is not comparable at the moment.

And why wouldn't the tech giant want to keep the money? They created the product or service that people want. Why would they share that with a company that had nothing to do with their business?

Your 80% number is not true. Most people live in metro areas and have at least 2 choices because population density makes it viable to have competition. Where you typically don't have 2 providers are rural areas where the population density is so low that even 1 company has a hard time making a business case (arguably DISH or cellular ISPs could be the 2nd, but we'll stick to hardline).

Its not about "sharing" revenue, which was sarcasm on my part. Its about competition in the online ad space. I'm not sure why you think Google is entitled to leverage its infrastructure of data mining they've built to make money yet ISPs should not? Maybe there's a good argument to be made there but I can't see it.

And are you really not seeing how the Internet Service Provider enabled the tech giants to monetize the internet? I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Remember when the ISPs accepted billions in federal subsidies to build out broadband networks to rural areas and then turned around and said 'nah never mind can't do it but thanks for the money'?

Good times.

Are you talking about the Universal Services Fund?

That only applied to telco companies for a long time but it was intended to subsidize costs where it made no business sense (or the ROI would be 10+ years, which nobody would do) to build infrastructure out to people in the sticks.

I can tel you it costs $10-15k per mile to build out fiber infrastructure in ideal conditions. Its often $20k+ and thats just aerial (on poles). Its a capital heavy business which is why you typically only see 1 provider (if any) out that far since not everybody that far off grid even wants internet service.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Question: a local-ish ISP put down fiber in my neighborhood recently, and we made the switch to them. How is this expected to impact companies like this and their customers? They're not new (in-laws have used this company for cable/internet since at least 1998,) so clearly they made a go of it before the net neutrality rules, but I have no idea if the last few years helped them get to the point where they could do fiber, either.

Generally, small ISPs are also against the net neutrality rules. And its not because they want to block the Daily Kos.

Its because they can be a source of data mining and get paid for it, which helps them stay profitable since they are typically building in areas that are not easy to justify ROI of very expensive infrastructure to deploy.

[JPhillips]

I don't expect any massive changes, but I do expect we'll fall further behind the rest of the developed world in terms of speed and cost.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites.

A big reason that Title II rules came into place is because prior to them Comcast tried to block bitTorrent. FCC moved against them due to net neutrality principles put in place in 2005 (which is why this strange focus just on Title II designation in 2015 misses the point). FCC decided they need stronger rules than just those principles.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Generally, small ISPs are also against the net neutrality rules. And its not because they want to block the Daily Kos.

Its because they can be a source of data mining and get paid for it, which helps them stay profitable since they are typically building in areas that are not easy to justify ROI of very expensive infrastructure to deploy.

Well, this isn't really a small town. The GSO/High Point/Winston-Salem area that this company serves has a higher population than Jacksonville, New Orleans, Memphis, or Birmingham, just to name a few areas, so maybe they don't fit the mold of what you're talking about here?

And let's be clear: I'm not interested in whether the ISP is for or against the rules. This is about ME and MY needs, ok? Does this increase the likelihood that one of the big boys will buy them out/force them out of business, thus causing me to need to care about this?

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A big reason that Title II rules came into place is because prior to them Comcast tried to block bitTorrent. FCC moved against them due to net neutrality principles put in place in 2005 (which is why this strange focus just on Title II designation in 2015 misses the point). FCC decided they need stronger rules than just those principles.

The 2005 principles were just guidelines, which is why the FCC moved to Title II classification when they were overruled on having the authority to penalize or enforce those guidelines.

Title II gave them that authority, but it also allows them to start price-fixing as they do in other areas. For instance, the reason you've seen so many ticky-tack fees for everything under the sun (DVR service, HD Sports, etc.) on your video subscription is because the FCC price-fixes the amount that a settop box can be rented for. So in order to provide a more expensive & capable box, while not forcing lower paying subscribers to subsidize it, you add the fees. Some companies simply abandoned that model (and I agree with the approach) because it has a negative perception.

Comcast blocked some bittorrent activity because it was effectively bottlenecking the rest of their customers, and they assumed most of it was illegal content anyway. Its not the case any more but back then torrents were eating 70-80% of capacities at peak times. With the advent of Netflix, Youtube, & others thats not nearly as substantial and overall throughput continues to double every year at every ISP.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Well, this isn't really a small town. The GSO/High Point/Winston-Salem area that this company serves has a higher population than Jacksonville, New Orleans, Memphis, or Birmingham, just to name a few areas, so maybe they don't fit the mold of what you're talking about here?

And let's be clear: I'm not interested in whether the ISP is for or against the rules. This is about ME and MY needs, ok? Does this increase the likelihood that one of the big boys will buy them out/force them out of business, thus causing me to need to care about this?

Yeah I'm talking much more rural than WS.

And no, the repea of net neutrality lowers the likelihood of being bought out as they are better able to operate without scale. But obviously net neutrality is not the only factor there.

[cuervo72]

This may not be directly relevant to net neutrality, but this article from a couple of years ago is interesting in at least touching upon the greater Google vs Cable fight.

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/fcc-set-top-box-rules/

This argument seems oddly familiar, btw.

If Google manufactures a set-top box, the argument goes, it could potentially insert its own ads into programming, taking money away from content creators. It would also, argues Rosa Mendoza, Executive Director of the Hispanic Technology & Telecommunications Partnership, disproportionately impact smaller networks with more targeted audiences who might get left out of a channel lineup altogether.

"They're asking us to trust Google?" she says. "All of us know about their diversity record. The only people that are going to benefit from this are Silicon Valley companies."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Would you be so kind as to link to your source? Because I think you're conflating 2 separate concepts.

There is only 1 CATV provider for the vast majorioty. But there is CATV, TELCO, plus DISH ISPs in addition to Cellular (which a lot of people are just using in lieu of hardwired).

Comcast & TWC did not compete because neither can make a business model entering the same markets when there is already a 3rd provider (typicallyu Verizon or AT&T or Centurylink).

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...C-340664A1.pdf

Page 8 has it.



Satellite is not comparable due to it's awful latency (although this is slowly being worked on) and restrictions in more urban areas. Cellular isn't an alternative due to cost for data and the restrictions that come with it. Perhaps when 5G hits but there isn't a lot of motivation to push that now.

[henry296]

Not all census blocks have the same population. They tend to have less population in in rural areas compared to urban ones.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Its not about "sharing" revenue, which was sarcasm on my part. Its about competition in the online ad space. I'm not sure why you think Google is entitled to leverage its infrastructure of data mining they've built to make money yet ISPs should not? Maybe there's a good argument to be made there but I can't see it.

And are you really not seeing how the Internet Service Provider enabled the tech giants to monetize the internet? I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

This is like saying that the light bulb manufacturer should have to pay the electric company because without them, their lights would not work. Or that Campbells Soup should have to give a cut to the gas company because without them, their product couldn't be heated on a gas stove.

Your ISP is a utility that provides a service to its customers (the ability to access the internet). They have nothing to do with whether that customer accesses Facebook or this very forum. Just like the electric company has nothing to do with whether I use Philips or GE light bulbs.

These tech companies are able to monetize because they provide a service (most often free) to users that people want to use. They have unlimited amounts of competition so that if they do screw over their customer, they will likely lose them to a company that won't screw them over. Net neutrality helped keep the internet competitive because it put each company on the same level playing field.

[Thomkal]

Net neutrality: Donald Trump Jr suggests people who want to keep net neutrality don't understand it

There were some pretty good burns on a Ted Cruz tweet about it to

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

I'm not following your train of thought outside of ISPs are inherently evil actors.

Because they've been anti-consumer and anti-competition in nearly every imaginable way.

Google and local municipalities have tried creating legitimate competition for ISPs and the way they've fought that competition is to bog it down in lawsuits to either stall it or force them to give up.

Comcast and other cable companies have pushed people to look for ways to cut cable because of their prices and business tactics and now that they actually have legitimate competition they're losing about 6 million subscribers per year and going up every year. Rather than improve in the areas that forced people to look for alternatives their solution is to find new ways to monetize the service cord cutter are using.

Comcast initially claimed their data caps were because of network congestion. Then they backtracked and claimed it was about fairness. Their version of fairness is to set an arbitrary number and charge you exponentially more than the standard rate when you go over that number. Yet I'm not paying any less if I'm well below that number and it doesn't roll over to the next month.

ISPs aren't going to block or bundle websites

I'll admit it's unlikely, but definitely not a guarantee. It is happening in other countries and as more and more people cut cable and they'll continue to look for new ways to monetize the services they have.

What is more likely is the internet fast lanes, which are already happening, are going to force more cost from Netflix, Hulu, Internet Gaming and other content providers onto consumers.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is like saying that the light bulb manufacturer should have to pay the electric company because without them, their lights would not work. Or that Campbells Soup should have to give a cut to the gas company because without them, their product couldn't be heated on a gas stove.

Your ISP is a utility that provides a service to its customers (the ability to access the internet). They have nothing to do with whether that customer accesses Facebook or this very forum. Just like the electric company has nothing to do with whether I use Philips or GE light bulbs.

These tech companies are able to monetize because they provide a service (most often free) to users that people want to use. They have unlimited amounts of competition so that if they do screw over their customer, they will likely lose them to a company that won't screw them over. Net neutrality helped keep the internet competitive because it put each company on the same level playing field.

Actually the light bulb manufacturer is not the analogy. The energy source provider is the proper analogy and the energy distribution company most certainly does collect distribution fees to maintain the physical infrastructure to provide said energy.

The reason they can give you a "free" service is because they aren't fully paying for the service they provide (e.g. the ability to get data to you...not just the entry point to the internet at their sites) in addition to monetizing users to sell to advertising companies. ISPs simply want the same ability to monetize.

Look I get it. People have their opinions on their ISP vs tech giants and they unanimously choose the tech giants. But you are essentially saying you prefer to pick tech giants & government over ISPs. You are of course free to choose that way but thats not a capitalist system you are supporting.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/at...C-340664A1.pdf

Page 8 has it.



Satellite is not comparable due to it's awful latency (although this is slowly being worked on) and restrictions in more urban areas. Cellular isn't an alternative due to cost for data and the restrictions that come with it. Perhaps when 5G hits but there isn't a lot of motivation to push that now.

89% of people had 10 Mbps down & 1 Mbps up from 2 or more fixed providers. Of note there were <1% with no access to 10/1 Mbps. The 10 Mbps jumped to 25 quickly by 2016 and continues to go up every year.

And yes, wired internet is still better for higher bandwidth applications. 5G ha spromise but its still a couple of years from any noteworthy rollout.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Because they've been anti-consumer and anti-competition in nearly every imaginable way.

Google and local municipalities have tried creating legitimate competition for ISPs and the way they've fought that competition is to bog it down in lawsuits to either stall it or force them to give up.

Comcast and other cable companies have pushed people to look for ways to cut cable because of their prices and business tactics and now that they actually have legitimate competition they're losing about 6 million subscribers per year and going up every year. Rather than improve in the areas that forced people to look for alternatives their solution is to find new ways to monetize the service cord cutter are using.

Comcast initially claimed their data caps were because of network congestion. Then they backtracked and claimed it was about fairness. Their version of fairness is to set an arbitrary number and charge you exponentially more than the standard rate when you go over that number. Yet I'm not paying any less if I'm well below that number and it doesn't roll over to the next month.

While I would point out that Comcast isn't losing 6 million subscribers a year (they've remained fairly stable at over 20 million) I'm certainly not going to disagree that some ISPs have made bad market decisions.

But Comcast has competitors. Verizon, AT&T, and Centurylink all compete with them in addition to Google fiber.

But speaking of Google fiber. Notice how when the adults got their hands on the money (e.g. new CFO in 2015 or 2016 IIRC) how little progress has happened there? Even with Googlebucks & the support of the local government it isn't easy.

And while I'm not familiar with every incumbent ISP lawsuit or pushback where Google starts in, I can tell you that many of those ISPs did not get the same easing of franchise negotiations, fasttracking, and most often had to provide all sorts of free services (in addition to revenue sharing) in a lot of those places. But I'm not against competition at all even if the incumbent was unfairly required to jump thru hoops that the new entrant isn't. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I'll admit it's unlikely, but definitely not a guarantee. It is happening in other countries and as more and more people cut cable and they'll continue to look for new ways to monetize the services they have.

What is more likely is the internet fast lanes, which are already happening, are going to force more cost from Netflix, Hulu, Internet Gaming and other content providers onto consumers.

That would, as you noted, happen organically anyway. Netflix actually has a great caching system they use inside of ISPs' datacenters that dramatically lowers the backbone/peering congestion they used to cause. They still eat up a lot of access network but thats less problematic these days as it was a few years back.

The amount of burden ISPs shoulder to handle 5 companies' content is staggering if you see the numbers. Its not quite this high any more (due to other options now) but Netflix was over half the traffic on ISPs' networks just a few years ago. If you weren't a Netflix subscriber, you were subsidizing that cost for those who did have Netflix...because Netflix wasn't paying for their bandwidth to their customers.

Its a murky subject. There's no good guys & bad guys in my view. Its just businesses trying to disrupt each other & I think thats a good thing if you want better products and better prices and more jobs for workers in those fields.

Edit to add: Yes, you mentioned other countries and blocking content. Thats the governments doing that. And the more authority you give the government by classifying ISPs as Title II common carriers, the closer you get to that because the government can exert their power & influence to "convince" the ISPs to block things they feel we shouldn't see (Wikileaks anybody?). Thats actually a little argued side of this debate but it ends up with the classic capitalist/socialist debates that really go nowhere. But I think its an important win on that front as well.

[cuervo72]

This is what I can get from Verizon:

3.1-7 Mbps Internet

$34.99/mo
for 1 year plus taxes & fees. Speeds 1.1 to 3, 3.1 - 7 and 7.1 - 15 Mbps. Verizon home phone service required.1
when added to Home Phone

The options are basically Comcast or HughesNet. I can deal with satellite for TV, but not for internet. So it's Comcast, where we've had 25 Mbps download and 5-7 Mbps upload for years (yay, innovation!).

Man Explains The Actual Dangers Of Net Neutrality Being Killed Off In Detailed Twitter Rant

I don't know how much of this is on-base or not, though it makes sense to me. This one absolutely worries me:

The problem is NOT that you'll have to pay to access your favorite mainstream website or service, but that you'll have to pay to access non mainstream websites or services if they dont have the financial mean to deal an inclusion on the main package.

I mean, let's be real - these are not only service providers, these are media companies. They have content, and they're going to want to get eyeballs to their content.

[Young Drachma]

I read something earlier about how this might push more cities (where it hasn't been banned by states) to create their own broadband networks locally. That's not a bad thing, but big telco is trying to prevent that from happening where it already hasn't.

[cuervo72]

Oh, regarding caching - I thought companies like Akamai took care of a lot of that (and pay ISPs to house their servers in their datacenters).

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

This may not be directly relevant to net neutrality, but this article from a couple of years ago is interesting in at least touching upon the greater Google vs Cable fight.

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/fcc-set-top-box-rules/

This argument seems oddly familiar, btw.

Yes, AllVid was the working name of it. AllVid - Wikipedia

All the MVPDs (which include cable, telco, dish, etc.) were against it. And the tech giants were for it (mostly anyway). The dispute was very political with (as you might have guessed) advertising money at the core of it.

CableCard really set the interactive video business back a couple of years in the mid 2000s, and its still a small burden today. And no MVPD wanted a new platform which would undoubtedly get outdated by the time legislation came to pass.

But what the tech giants wanted was to get the benefits of programming they didn't have to negotiate for by forcing MVPDs to support a common platform. You'd still need a subscription with the MVPD but they could monetize that platform without programmer consent, and that would give them leverage to get consent from programmers (assuming they had a wildly successful ability to convince consumers to buy their version of such a platform). Just all sorts of weird implications honestly which would have delayed better investments in video in my opinion...even putting aside the right/wrong of it.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I genuinely don't remember this. Where can I read/learn more?

From 2015:
AT&T grudgingly accepts $428 million in annual government funding | Ars Technica

AT&T has struck a deal with the US government to get nearly $428 million per year to bring 10Mbps Internet service to parts of rural America after protesting that it shouldn't have to provide speeds that fast.

The money comes from the Connect America Fund, which draws from surcharges on Americans' phone bills to pay for rural Internet service. AT&T accepted the money even though it argued last year that rural customers don't need Internet service better than the old standard of 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream. The FCC ignored AT&T's protests in December, raising the Connect America Fund download standard to 10Mbps while leaving the 1Mbps requirement unchanged.

From 2017:
Rural broadband subsidy programs are a failure. We need to fix them. | TheHill

FCC begins scaling back internet subsidies for low-income homes - The Verge

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Oh, regarding caching - I thought companies like Akamai took care of a lot of that (and pay ISPs to house their servers in their datacenters).

They do for most smaller companies where it doesn't make sense to build your own CDN. And thats the vast majority of web companies.

But the larger ones, Netflix, Google/Youtube, Amazon, etc. have their own as do the largest ISPs to differing degrees (e.g. cloud DVR on a private CDN).

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

I read something earlier about how this might push more cities (where it hasn't been banned by states) to create their own broadband networks locally. That's not a bad thing, but big telco is trying to prevent that from happening where it already hasn't.

Yeah Google fiber started a small wave of that. The problem with it is the same problem municipalities had in the late 90s early 2000s when many tried the same thing...if they even build a network, they have a hard time keeping up with technology and it quickly becomes insolvent. Especially if taxpayers aren't onboard with the erratic large investments needed, as it isn't just "build it and everything stays the same for years". It literally requires constant upkeep, and very smart people to properly architect it.

Its possible of course, but generally speaking the brightest are going to go work elsewhere since municipalities aren't likely to keep up with the wages they can earn elsewhere.

Edit to add: Its worth noting that this very scenario is the reason many states & municipalities actually have laws against them doing this very thing. Because if the municipality can no longer afford to maintain the erratic & large costs (both people & hardware) they essentially have to get money from the state (to fund contractors...not cheap) to come in & solve their problems. And all the while, the municipality has discouraged private competition from investing so the municipality ends up worse off in just a few years.

Its not a guarantee that every municipal system ends up that way of course. But its a very risky proposition if you have at least 1 semi-reasonable incumbent ISP.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SteveM58

Edit to add: Its worth noting that this very scenario is the reason many states & municipalities actually have laws against them doing this very thing. Because if the municipality can no longer afford to maintain the erratic & large costs (both people & hardware) they essentially have to get money from the state (to fund contractors...not cheap) to come in & solve their problems. And all the while, the municipality has discouraged private competition from investing so the municipality ends up worse off in just a few years.

With all due respect, come on. These laws have been passed after telecom lobbying and they ain't lobbying to limit taxpayer liability.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

This is what I can get from Verizon:

3.1-7 Mbps Internet

$34.99/mo
for 1 year plus taxes & fees. Speeds 1.1 to 3, 3.1 - 7 and 7.1 - 15 Mbps. Verizon home phone service required.1
when added to Home Phone

The options are basically Comcast or HughesNet. I can deal with satellite for TV, but not for internet. So it's Comcast, where we've had 25 Mbps download and 5-7 Mbps upload for years (yay, innovation!).

Man Explains The Actual Dangers Of Net Neutrality Being Killed Off In Detailed Twitter Rant

I don't know how much of this is on-base or not, though it makes sense to me. This one absolutely worries me:



I mean, let's be real - these are not only service providers, these are media companies. They have content, and they're going to want to get eyeballs to their content.

Wow, Verizon really sucks there. Maybe they should stop paying billions for 90s era tech companies & invest in their network there.

There's a lot of misinformation on net neutrality out there. And that guy's twitter stream is not helping that problem.

First off, Verizon & Comcast did not "throttle" Netflix. They simply refused to upgrade peering links to support Netflix migrating content from A to B location without Netflix footing some of that bill. When a company that supplies as much content as Netflix migrates their origination point, it causes massive shifts in how much traffic comes from where. This saturates links all over the place and requires upgrades quickly to compensate.

When Netflix refused to pay for their impact to peering connections, Comcast & Verizon simply refused to upgrade (specifically for this move) in the places that Netflix caused impact. Its, once again, just a business trying to win the PR game against easy pickins (Comcast & Verizon).

Second, and probably the most ludicrous, is that small websites will have to pay exorbitant fees to not get on the "slow lane". This could be done with net neutrality in place, as NN doesn't cover the initial access connection being priced any certain way. So all an ISP has to do is price a small website out of paying anything at all. It doesn't happen because ISPs want their money, generally have competition for their business, and want their subscribers to pay them for access to everything. Its such an incoherent argument, it boggles the mind.

Another thing preventing ISPs from squashing small sites (as if they had motivation to do it), is that the small websites could be hosted & originated by a larger aggregation entity which would discourage an ISP from screwing with one of the small websites it hosts. Again...its just silly why the ISP would even bother.

I'll give it a rest for the night. But man there's a lot of misinformation on this topic. Some of it is justifiable concern to a degree, but some of it is really misinformed or really disingenuous.

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

With all due respect, come on. These laws have been passed after telecom lobbying and they ain't lobbying to limit taxpayer liability.

They are passed, in some cases, because telecoms lobbied them to make sure their investments in municipalities weren't going to get competition from the actual municipality they were investing into. Competing with the government is not what they signed up for when they entered the market.

Think about it. Why would you spend $100s of millions in an area that is going to compete with you. You certainly wouldn't enter the market under the same terms if that was the case.

That happened a number of times in late 90s/early 2000s. I actually helped build a couple of them, and they are all defunct now (assets sold off dirt cheap to a local cable/telco company).

But it wasn't all lobbying that did that. States actually didn't want their municipalities going off and doing crazy things with massive cost implications just because they managed to get something built & later on nobody else was willing to fund it.

[JPhillips]

The NC bill in 2011 was titled:

"An act to protect jobs and investment by regulating local government competition with private business."

Funny how that doesn't mention costs and taxpayer liability.

edit: The Kansas bill said this:

"scarce taxpayer dollars should not be used by municipalities to directly compete with private telecom providers."

double edit: Clearly ALEC is supplying legislative language to states, and they are industry funded throughout their issues. They have a section of their website devoted to broadband access.

https://www.alec.org/issue/broadband/

[SteveM58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The NC bill in 2011 was titled:



Funny how that doesn't mention costs and taxpayer liability.

edit: The Kansas bill said this:

NC was (and still is) home to major ISP presence like AT&T and Time Warner Cable. They weren't going to base themselves there without assurances like that. If that makes them evil, just wait until you see what Amazon gets on HQ2.

But I agree lobbying is a terrible side effect of government holding so many cards. I'd rather there be nothing to lobby for personally.