You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
Re: Net Neutrality
I know this came up in the politics thread, but I'd like to drag this out of there for a couple reasons. One so it doesn't get lost in the rest of the conversation, but more importantly because I want to keep it away from the animosity of that thread.
I'd like some help understanding the pros and cons of net neutrality. Not the talking points...I've seen those. I prefer real-life application. To me, the solution is fairly simple...if there were more competition in the markets instead of monopolies in terms of the ISP options in local markets, net neutrality would take care of itself. People would go to the place that gave them the options they wanted. I don't need the gov't to demand something that the free-market will demand for us. The only reason I can think of that this won't work is because the monopolies run so deep that it will take time and money to open the markets up to other companies...that's the only hiccup I see, but I am curious what others think. This isn't my area of expertise, so help me learn something.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Net Neutrality
I don't understand how people think it relates to 'Choosing your own ISP" at all? I got into a debate with someone on twitter over it, and I honestly began to think they were just trolling the subject.
IMHO, net neutrality is more about the ISP's being able to charge websites on the backend. Sites like Youtube, Netflix, Facebook, Pandora etc would have to pay Comcast, Verizon, Charter, AT&T etc. Otherwise, they have the ability to throttle them. Heck, GNRev could be asked to ante up $1/mo to keep it live & viewable.
What's really worse, is that it stagnates innovation. What if NN was implemented 10-15 years ago?? Youtube & Facebook would never have gotten off the ground. Netflix would simply be a DVD by mail company. So, what are we going to lose out on over the next 10-15 years?
A popular image circulated about how Portugal has a NN type law, and how their cable is supposedly sold:
I've heard its not entirely accurate, something like you get a minimum amount of each, or that itself the totals only come out to $25/mo. Not sure. I've heard what T Mobile is doing giving away unlimited Pandora & Netflix sortof kills off competition in itself, because it guides its users to use Pandora & Netflix, therefore not Spotify & Hulu etc. No open choice per se.
As to pros, well I'll admit I think with Livestreaming its gonna get ridiculous. I was at the gym & some moron was FB Live on the treadmill or something. Its gotta be tough or the ISPs to keep up. Also, there's kindof a 2nd level internet where the cable companies kindof borrow or read off of more of a mainframe internet. It was explained to me by somebody, but lets say GnrEv is hosted by GoDaddy. When I log onto my Comcast internet and visit, Comcast doesn't directly send a signal to GoDaddy and they respond back, because, what if I'm visiting a site hosted in Germany or Netherlands. I don't remember exactly how to define it but I was told Comcast uses a company Tata who is more of a global internet provider, and for each website transmission, they pay Tata some fraction of a penny.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Net Neutrality
That Portuguese image is more akin to what mobile providers are doing now, because they’re not under the same provisions as broadband. T-Mobile is offering Netflix and not charging you for data used while streaming Netflix. If you’re not on unlimited, they would charge you for HBO.
As the wired article I linked pointed out, all the big online services are already connected directly to your ISP to optimize their traffic. YouTube has a direct connection to your ISP because Google can afford it, and that reduces latency and hops, providing you a better service. The idea that websites themselves would be subjected to “fast lanes” is laughable because the amount of data in your typical website is incredibly small. You wouldn’t know the difference if you were capped at 512kbps or 400mbps. It’s when you’re streaming or doing something that takes up lots of data, like gaming, that there could be a risk.
Canada doesn’t have NN and their internet quality is almost identical to the US. As we saw with mobile providers, T-mobile, sprint and the other tiny carriers forced AT&T and Verizon to offer competitive unlimited plans. We need something similar to happen with broadband. 4 carriers dominating the entire US market and intentionally limiting their geographic region save Verizon to limit competition is the problem. Remember the dial-up days when there were 100 carriers to choose from? That’s what moved us from $30 for 30 hours a month to $20 for unlimited.
I’m all for NN, but it’s a nonexistent problem that needs fixed. Competition is what America needs to improve its already pretty damn good broadband. But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
Re: Net Neutrality
But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
I've thought about that but heard wireless spectrum is getting tapped out. What heppens when 4k or 8k runs wild? If anything ISPs will be used for wifi hotspots, and every few blocks or intersections there will be a hotspot on a utility pole to feed from.
As for 'fast lane' and competition, what about the 'next big thing'? It may not come to be. Sure, YT, Netflix etc have the funding to pay, but a site like periscope, which I think ultimately went under, or Snapchat. Also AT&T & Verizon are now permitted to charge YT & FB, so the free services could become hampered. And what about lesser used video hosting sites like Vimeo & learning sites like Udemy. I agree a site like this is minimal, but I feel like where previously it was king of the mountain, now its just gonna be the elites & no competition or innovation.
(I'll read your article, didn't have time last night)
Re: Net Neutrality
Canada doesn’t have NN and their internet quality is almost identical to the US. As we saw with mobile providers, T-mobile, sprint and the other tiny carriers forced AT&T and Verizon to offer competitive unlimited plans. We need something similar to happen with broadband. 4 carriers dominating the entire US market and intentionally limiting their geographic region save Verizon to limit competition is the problem. Remember the dial-up days when there were 100 carriers to choose from? That’s what moved us from $30 for 30 hours a month to $20 for unlimited.
I’m all for NN, but it’s a nonexistent problem that needs fixed. Competition is what America needs to improve its already pretty damn good broadband. But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
I pay $55/mo for 5mbps download and 1 mbps upload in Canada. What do you pay?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Net Neutrality
Randall Flagg wrote:Canada doesn’t have NN and their internet quality is almost identical to the US. As we saw with mobile providers, T-mobile, sprint and the other tiny carriers forced AT&T and Verizon to offer competitive unlimited plans. We need something similar to happen with broadband. 4 carriers dominating the entire US market and intentionally limiting their geographic region save Verizon to limit competition is the problem. Remember the dial-up days when there were 100 carriers to choose from? That’s what moved us from $30 for 30 hours a month to $20 for unlimited.
I’m all for NN, but it’s a nonexistent problem that needs fixed. Competition is what America needs to improve its already pretty damn good broadband. But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
I pay $55/mo for 5mbps download and 1 mbps upload in Canada. What do you pay?
I have a bundled package with cable (every channel) and phone. $200 a month for 300 mbps down and like 30 up. My internet alone would be about $70
Re: Net Neutrality
I have a bundled package with cable (every channel) and phone. $200 a month for 300 mbps down and like 30 up. My internet alone would be about $70
The equivalent is about €85-€95 for an all-in package here in Belgium (200mbps down and 20mbps up, but who cares about the speed difference with numbers like that) and we're about 15% more expensive than the average in Europe. I'll refer to my post in the original thread for my stance on Net Neutrality (tl;dr: we need it):
Randall Flagg wrote:I'm still trying to formulate an opinion, and all the doom and gloom pretending the FCC saved the internet under Obama isn't helping. There was no "net neutrality" (which I've found is really a buzzword and has no actual definition) prior to 2015 and the internet was just fine. Like I said, Canada lacks a net neutrality law, and they don't have any issues. Same with the Netherlands.
The Netherlands was the first European country to enact a net neutrality law. It's only recently that this legislation has been challenged due to a new EU directive that might prohibit The Netherlands from enforcing some of the stricter parts of their legislation. But in practice, today, The Netherlands still has Net Neutrality legislation.
Randall Flagg wrote:Capitalism and competition is what forced Verizon and AT&T to start offering unlimited data plans at a fair rate in order to compete with Sprint and T-Mobile.
Yes. But unfortunately, there is no real competition in fixed broadband internet in the US. You typically only have one cable provider and one dominant DSL provider per area, making it so the forces of capitalism can't really work as they should. That's why in the US, you pay nearly twice as much for broadband internet service than in most of Europe.
Randall Flagg wrote:I think I'm in favor of net neutrality, but the scare tactics and nonsense populating the dialogue turns me off. I'd much rather see the feds break up the major ISPs and treat the cable lines like we do the electric and water companies.
That's effectively what the FCC did under Tom Wheeler: regulate internet as a Title II communications service. It's not entirely the same as regulating it as a utility, but it's the closest thing that was feasible back then. Now, even title II seems a pipe dream.
Net neutrality is needed because there is just not enough competition, and the cost of entry for new players is staggeringly high (prohibitively so), and often hampered by building permits, zoning regulations and other publicly managed resources. There's just no real chance for new competitors to come up and disrupt things.
Net Neutrality legislation has become a necessity due to the recent consolidation in the industry (comcast/time warner/cox, at&t/directv, ...). There are other ways to achieve similar results, but net neutrality is a simple principle: just like PG&E does not get to charge different rates depending on what you do with your electricity, your internet provider should not charge you depending on what you do with your bytes. You pay for throughput and volume, not the contents of your internet packets.
Re: Net Neutrality
I’m all for NN, but it’s a nonexistent problem that needs fixed. Competition is what America needs to improve its already pretty damn good broadband. But my bet is within 5 years, everything will be wireless and wired internet will go the way of the dodo, making a lot of this discussion moot.
Wireless spectrum is not finite, as a matter of fact we're nearly at the limit as it is today. That's why it's a prime example of a natural resource that needs to be regulated by the government, but also why it's never going to be a full replacement for wired internet.
The point of Net Neutrality is not that access providers shouldn't be able to pay for fast lines from their infrastructure to the ISP's. It is that ISP shouldn't be able to bill you depending on what you do with your internet. They shouldn't be able to charge you more for you streaming 100mb worth of Netflix data than 100mb worth of Hulu data, THAT is what Net Neutrality is trying to protect.
Pages: 1
