Net Neutrality

[swood1000]

I am afraid your post pushes this thread from "borderline" to "obliquely public policy."

Will definitely be following with great interest.

I though we were safe until we got to "disguised public policy."

[dudog84]

I am afraid your post pushes this thread from "borderline" to "obliquely public policy."

Will definitely be following with great interest.

Which is just what I was hoping to avoid with my initial post. Thanks swood!

[swood1000]

Which is just what I was hoping to avoid with my initial post. Thanks swood!

I'm not really sure how distinguishing between net neutrality and Title II goes over the line, so I'll just drop out of the discussion at this point.

[dudog84]

I'm not really sure how distinguishing between net neutrality and Title II goes over the line, so I'll just drop out of the discussion at this point.

Just messin' with ya, man! Come back Shane!

[BLPOG]

In my opinion this thread shouldn't exist, but since it does and it's difficult for me to succinctly describe how awful I think net neutrality is, I will leave this link to a a new subreddit that opposes it. NoNetNeutrality

The posts are being downvoted en mass by other Reddit users, but if you want to find a few collected resources against the policy in order to understand that position you should be able to do so there.

[snowdenscold]

Here's my hipster-ish, above-it-all take.

This is a power struggle between giant corporate interests over who foots the bill on bandwidth costs for unlimited streaming HD video.

Both sides -- telecom infrastructure vs content providers -- are trying to couch their cause in nobler, ideological terms, and each has captured and manipulated one side of the political aisle apparently.

But don't lose track of what this is really about.

So, in an effort to deal with the current problem Netflix is creating, we may be potentially stifling innovation that could be the next 'Netflix'.


I would think there'd be some sort of compromise/hybrid solution, where if you get above a certain point in terms of aggregate traffic, you could potentially be asked to kick in some money for your OTT content. But we wouldn't want to apply that across the board, otherwise starts-ups may face costs to entry that could prevent them from ever getting off the ground. (And of course you could have more than 1 threshold level.)

[dudog84]

Well, they did it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1E81CX

[DUKIECB]

Well, they did it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1E81CX

From what I'm reading it looks like the courts will ultimately decide unless congress intervenes and passes new legislation.

[RPS]

Here's my hipster-ish, above-it-all take.

This is a power struggle between giant corporate interests over who foots the bill on bandwidth costs for unlimited streaming HD video.

Both sides -- telecom infrastructure vs content providers -- are trying to couch their cause in nobler, ideological terms, and each has captured and manipulated one side of the political aisle apparently.

But don't lose track of what this is really about.

Ding ding ding ding ding.

We have a winner. Deep Throat had it right. Follow the money.

[swood1000]

They have retained a transparency rule, requiring the internet service providers to disclose in detail their practices, such as whether they are blocking or throttling, or providing fast lanes for a fee (which was the threat that justified the Obama rules), so if such activities take place and seem to be harmful to the Internet there will be an opportunity to do something about it then.

One reason given for the change was that the Obama rule was seen to have “depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.” (Of course, this was denied by the other side.) Essentially the argument is the Obama rules put the Internet massively under the control of government agencies and that people are reluctant to make investments when the government has the authority to come in at some unpredictable time and upset everyone’s economic calculations with new fundamental economic rules, possibly politically motivated and therefore impossible to anticipate.

It allows the Federal Trade Commission to once again take over enforcement of practices considered anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive.

[PackMan97]

I haven't followed the sides on this nearly enough to make an educated comment on the issue. However, I will make a comment on the process. I am incredibly disappointed in the state of things that this essentially boiled down to a partisan issue. WTF? I don't care which is "right", this issue is really far too complex to be a partisan issue. I really despise the state of our politics these days.

[LasVegas]

I haven't followed the sides on this nearly enough to make an educated comment on the issue. However, I will make a comment on the process. I am incredibly disappointed in the state of things that this essentially boiled down to a partisan issue. WTF? I don't care which is "right", this issue is really far too complex to be a partisan issue. I really despise the state of our politics these days.

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

[swood1000]

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

What percentage of the people polled do you think really understood the issues? And what was the question asked? Whether they want the Internet to be equal and fair or not? Polls by the other side probably ask whether they want Internet to remain free or to be hamstrung by government regulations, with a totally different result.

[LasVegas]

What percentage of the people polled do you think really understood the issues? And what was the question asked? Whether they want the Internet to be equal and fair or not? Polls by the other side probably ask whether they want Internet to remain free or to be hamstrung by government regulations, with a totally different result.

http://www.publicconsultation.org/un...et-neutrality/

Seems like a pretty fair poll to me.

[BLPOG]

It wasnt partisan for the people. Like 80% of all Americans favored net neutrality regardless of party affiliation.

Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand?

If I asked a resident of Oymyakon, Siberia if he supported or opposed the infield fly rule, I don't think his response would carry much meaning in regard to the subject of the question.

I think that in such a case, it would be more accurate to say that a person claims to favor/object, or perhaps pretends to or purports to, etc.

My experience has not left me with the impression that people are well-informed on this subject. I think you are right that it is not partisan, per se, and your 80% figure, if accurate, could reflect that. I also think that it could reflect a choosing of "sides" based on social affiliations rather than reason.

[LasVegas]

Can a person be said to favor or object to something that he does not understand?

If I asked a resident of Oymyakon, Siberia if he supported or opposed the infield fly rule, I don't think his response would carry much meaning in regard to the subject of the question.

I think that in such a case, it would be more accurate to say that a person claims to favor/object, or perhaps pretends to or purports to, etc.

My experience has not left me with the impression that people are well-informed on this subject. I think you are right that it is not partisan, per se, and your 80% figure, if accurate, could reflect that. I also think that it could reflect a choosing of "sides" based on social affiliations rather than reason.

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.

[BLPOG]

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.

If you mean to so say that the poll methodology accomplished that, I don't agree based on what I read, nor do I believe that a poll [of registered voters] could be designed to do so.

[swood1000]

But if you explained both sides of the infleld fly rule, you would hope the person would have the intelligence to understand and make a judgement on it.

But they didn't explain both sides. They gave a summary of the claims of both sides but no way to judge how likely such an outcome was. Do you really think that such a person understands the issues? Furthermore, the argument in favor said nothing about letting Internet development remain free vs letting it be managed and strangled by government regulation.

Furthermore, here was the final question:

Q15: So, in conclusion, do you favor or oppose the proposal to give Internet Service Providers the freedom to:

• provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower download speed for other websites

• block access to certain websites

• charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites

Are you in favor of extra expense, a faster download speed for the elite but slower for you, blocked access to certain sites, additional fees? I don't think that those supporting the FCC's action today would characterize the likely result of their action this way.

[dudog84]

To me, it's a simple question. Has the internet become a utility, a basic service, like electricity, phone, or water.

I believe it has. Several months ago, I cut the cable cord but kept my internet service. Because I don't need to watch TV, but the internet is a necessity for my business. And I connect more with people by email than by phone. It is the world we live in today.

It's ridiculous to think those that can pay more should get cleaner water than than their neighbor, their phone calls to 911 get preference, or their lights burn brighter.

This is the argument. To make it about anything else is disingenuous.

And don't get me started on the opportunities for censorship.

[BLPOG]

To me, it's a simple question [emphasis added]. Has the internet become a utility, a basic service, like electricity, phone, or water.

I believe it has. Several months ago, I cut the cable cord but kept my internet service. Because I don't need to watch TV, but the internet is a necessity for my business. And I connect more with people by email than by phone. It is the world we live in today.

It's ridiculous to think those that can pay more should get cleaner water than than their neighbor, their phone calls to 911 get preference, or their lights burn brighter.

This is the argument. To make it about anything else is disingenuous.

And don't get me started on the opportunities for censorship.

I'd have to disagree. That is not to say that there are not simple reasons that could be sufficient to decide the issue despite other complex components, but based on the rest of your comment, I don't think you are aware of those complexities.

I've spent some time thinking and I'm not really sure of a way to respond that doesn't come off poorly, as either overly combative or condescending. That's why I don't think threads like this one should normally exist on DBR; despite being a community that stands significantly to the right on the distributions for intelligence, politeness, and good faith discussions, there are some factors that are so difficult to overcome in political discourse that even the best attempts are going to fall short and cause problems, and those with will bleed into our other threads. It's a shame, because I probably couldn't find another group of people with whom I would rather have those discussions.

I've exhausted what I can say without breaking rules or causing problems in this thread. I just hope that people can try to understand that massive destruction of information is antithetical to human prosperity.