Is anyone *against* net neutrality?

[ttt]

Is there anyone here not in favor of net neutrality? I'm wondering if there is anyone against it who doesn't work for a telecom company or their lobbying firms. 

Are there any arguments against it that don't amount to "so Comcast can make more money"?

[gpw]

I feel like such an ass, but I really have no idea what this is.

[ttt]

Nov 11, 2014 10:08:36 GMT -5 gpw said:

I feel like such an ass, but I really have no idea what this is.

Basically, Comcast/ATT/Verizon want to have the right to change your internet speed depending on what site you visit. So you're browsing from home, you want to watch Netflix, but you have Comcast internet and Comcast has their own movie site they want you to watch. So when you go to Netflix, they make your internet speed suuuuuuuper slow so that the movies are basically unwatchable. 

Net neutrality says "no, you can't do that, you have to treat all internet traffic the same." 

[suzyp]

Nov 11, 2014 10:03:54 GMT -5 ttt said:

Is there anyone here not in favor of net neutrality? I'm wondering if there is anyone against it who doesn't work for a telecom company or their lobbying firms. 

Are there any arguments against it that don't amount to "so Comcast can make more money"?

Well, according to Ted Cruz, it's the Obamacare of the internet, so there's that.  Nevermind that he's taken a crapload of money from Comcast - I'm sure that has nothing to do with his opinion.

[ttt]

@stopstaring this is even better theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

[gpw]

Welp. It looks like I'm in favor of net neutrality.

See how much I learn here?

[josieposy]

Good question. I would guess there are probably very few opponents here.

Yesterday's thread had a link from The Oatmeal that was pretty good.

[ttt]

Nov 11, 2014 10:18:56 GMT -5 josieposy said:

Good question. I would guess there are probably very few opponents here.

Yesterday's thread had a link from The Oatmeal that was pretty good.

I'm guessing that too. But I'm wondering if there are *any*. I honestly don't see what arguments you can make against it unless you are a Time Warner lobbyist or maybe a super super super duper pro-business libertarian. 

[wawa]

Nov 11, 2014 10:14:52 GMT -5 ttt said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:08:36 GMT -5 gpw said:

I feel like such an ass, but I really have no idea what this is.

Basically, Comcast/ATT/Verizon want to have the right to change your internet speed depending on what site you visit. So you're browsing from home, you want to watch Netflix, but you have Comcast internet and Comcast has their own movie site they want you to watch. So when you go to Netflix, they make your internet speed suuuuuuuper slow so that the movies are basically unwatchable. 

Net neutrality says "no, you can't do that, you have to treat all internet traffic the same." 

To play the role of the telecoms as I understand it - the issue with this is that there are certain services who are HUGE bandwidth hogs and those services aren't paying their fair share since you don't pay for landside internet service by volume like you do with cell data.  So internet providers are constantly playing catchup and having to charge everybody else more in order to accommodate the amounts of data that are being used by streaming services and stuff like bittorrent.

If they were allowed to throttle down certain users - or charge extra for better bandwidth - they'd have the resources to actually innovate and improve the network instead of just barely keeping up.

[blink]

Wouldn't a super duper pro-business libertarian want net neutrality that way he can make his own start-up with his own bootstraps and not get shut down by slow internet speeds? Or would the logic just be that he could get his internet from somewhere else?

[wawa]

Nov 11, 2014 10:25:48 GMT -5 blink said:

Wouldn't a super duper pro-business libertarian want net neutrality that way he can make his own start-up with his own bootstraps and not get shut down by slow internet speeds? Or would the logic just be that he could get his internet from somewhere else?

No, a super super pro-business libertarian would be against the government regulation aspect of the whole thing.  Internet providers are private businesses, thus they should be free to provide reduced services to whomever they please without the government telling them how to run their business.  If people don't like the service they provide, naturally that creates a market for a competitor - who will fill the void by providing more equitable service if that's what consumers truly want.

We will ignore the MASSIVE barriers to entering the market of being an internet provider and the de facto monopoly on high speed internet in many areas.

ETA: it also ignores (and this is a bigger issue in my mind) the fact that picking and choosing which content you allow access to limits the workings of the market.  YOu can only assume a perfect market in a situation where you can also assume perfect information.  If consumers are limited in what they can know (because their information is provided via the internet....and they just can't get to certain stuff) then there is no way for them to make the informed decisions necessary for the market to force change.

I think for any SUPER libertarian (and I do know a few) who aren't just mindlessly pro-business - that consideration logically forces them to be pro net neutrality.  You can't restrict the flow of information and expect the market to be self-correcting. 

[ttt]

Nov 11, 2014 10:24:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:14:52 GMT -5 ttt said:

Basically, Comcast/ATT/Verizon want to have the right to change your internet speed depending on what site you visit. So you're browsing from home, you want to watch Netflix, but you have Comcast internet and Comcast has their own movie site they want you to watch. So when you go to Netflix, they make your internet speed suuuuuuuper slow so that the movies are basically unwatchable. 

Net neutrality says "no, you can't do that, you have to treat all internet traffic the same." 

To play the role of the telecoms as I understand it - the issue with this is that there are certain services who are HUGE bandwidth hogs and those services aren't paying their fair share since you don't pay for landside internet service by volume like you do with cell data.  So internet providers are constantly playing catchup and having to charge everybody else more in order to accommodate the amounts of data that are being used by streaming services and stuff like bittorrent.

If they were allowed to throttle down certain users - or charge extra for better bandwidth - they'd have the resources to actually innovate and improve the network instead of just barely keeping up.

Can't they already do this? Cell providers already charge you for x amount of data per month. 

At any rate, Comcast's second quarter profits this year - profits, not revenue - were $1.99 billion (http://online.wsj.com/articles/comcasts-profit-rises-15-helped-by-improving-video-trends-1406026862). So the reason they're not innovating and improving the network is definitely not a lack of resources. 

[wawa]

Nov 11, 2014 10:33:52 GMT -5 ttt said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:24:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

To play the role of the telecoms as I understand it - the issue with this is that there are certain services who are HUGE bandwidth hogs and those services aren't paying their fair share since you don't pay for landside internet service by volume like you do with cell data.  So internet providers are constantly playing catchup and having to charge everybody else more in order to accommodate the amounts of data that are being used by streaming services and stuff like bittorrent.

If they were allowed to throttle down certain users - or charge extra for better bandwidth - they'd have the resources to actually innovate and improve the network instead of just barely keeping up.

Can't they already do this? Cell providers already charge you for x amount of data per month. 

At any rate, Comcast's second quarter profits this year - profits, not revenue - were $1.99 billion (http://online.wsj.com/articles/comcasts-profit-rises-15-helped-by-improving-video-trends-1406026862). So the reason they're not innovating and improving the network is definitely not a lack of resources. 

Cell and landside are regulated differently.

ETA: or rather...they have been until recently which is why this is an issue now?  I don't know.  I've reached the end of my ability to pretend to be the other side.

[msmerymac]

Nov 11, 2014 10:33:04 GMT -5 wawa said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:25:48 GMT -5 blink said:

Wouldn't a super duper pro-business libertarian want net neutrality that way he can make his own start-up with his own bootstraps and not get shut down by slow internet speeds? Or would the logic just be that he could get his internet from somewhere else?

No, a super super pro-business libertarian would be against the government regulation aspect of the whole thing.  Internet providers are private businesses, thus they should be free to provide reduced services to whomever they please without the government telling them how to run their business.  If people don't like the service they provide, naturally that creates a market for a competitor - who will fill the void by providing more equitable service if that's what consumers truly want.

We will ignore the MASSIVE barriers to entering the market of being an internet provider and the de facto monopoly on high speed internet in many areas.

ETA: it also ignores (and this is a bigger issue in my mind) the fact that picking and choosing which content you allow access to limits the workings of the market.  YOu can only assume a perfect market in a situation where you can also assume perfect information.  If consumers are limited in what they can know (because their information is provided via the internet....and they just can't get to certain stuff) then there is no way for them to make the informed decisions necessary for the market to force change.

I think for any SUPER libertarian (and I do know a few) who aren't just mindlessly pro-business - that consideration logically forces them to be pro net neutrality.  You can't restrict the flow of information and expect the market to be self-correcting. 

Or the fact that telecoms are already subsidized by the government. 

I guess I can see people being against Net Neutrality. I mean, there are politicians who are against the minimum wage, probably for similar reasons. But I can't pretend I can wrap my mind around that line of thinking because the end of that slippery slope would be disbanding OSHA and allowing 7 year olds to quit school and work in factories again.

[msmerymac]

Nov 11, 2014 10:33:52 GMT -5 ttt said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:24:07 GMT -5 wawa said:

To play the role of the telecoms as I understand it - the issue with this is that there are certain services who are HUGE bandwidth hogs and those services aren't paying their fair share since you don't pay for landside internet service by volume like you do with cell data.  So internet providers are constantly playing catchup and having to charge everybody else more in order to accommodate the amounts of data that are being used by streaming services and stuff like bittorrent.

If they were allowed to throttle down certain users - or charge extra for better bandwidth - they'd have the resources to actually innovate and improve the network instead of just barely keeping up.

Can't they already do this? Cell providers already charge you for x amount of data per month. 

At any rate, Comcast's second quarter profits this year - profits, not revenue - were $1.99 billion (http://online.wsj.com/articles/comcasts-profit-rises-15-helped-by-improving-video-trends-1406026862). So the reason they're not innovating and improving the network is definitely not a lack of resources. 

Well they do tier home internet service, too. Like the basic package with FiOS is 25 mbps, then you can pay $10 more per month for 50 mbps, or 75 mbps, or 150 mbps. I think I have 50 or 75 and it seems perfectly fine, but the different tiers kind of scared me that the basic package wouldn't be fast or reliable enough for me to work from home full time.

But what we're mostly talking about is, say, charging Amazon a bunch of money in order to make their site faster than Barnes and Noble, which is the other side of net neutrality. 

So whether or not they can continue charging customers for different tiers would depend on future legislation. I'm guessing that nothing that sweeping will come through - especially not with this congress. 

[secretlyevil]

Do you know how much I pay Time Warner (Bright House) for internet a month for the *super duper fast internet? And how much trouble I have with it? Yeah, they can go suck it in a corner somewhere.

*We do regular speed tests, our internet fluctuates like a mofo. BTW, I do not get credit for the times my internet runs less than it's suppose to.

[blink]

Nov 11, 2014 10:33:04 GMT -5 wawa said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:25:48 GMT -5 blink said:

Wouldn't a super duper pro-business libertarian want net neutrality that way he can make his own start-up with his own bootstraps and not get shut down by slow internet speeds? Or would the logic just be that he could get his internet from somewhere else?

No, a super super pro-business libertarian would be against the government regulation aspect of the whole thing.  Internet providers are private businesses, thus they should be free to provide reduced services to whomever they please without the government telling them how to run their business.  If people don't like the service they provide, naturally that creates a market for a competitor - who will fill the void by providing more equitable service if that's what consumers truly want.

We will ignore the MASSIVE barriers to entering the market of being an internet provider and the de facto monopoly on high speed internet in many areas.

ETA: it also ignores (and this is a bigger issue in my mind) the fact that picking and choosing which content you allow access to limits the workings of the market.  YOu can only assume a perfect market in a situation where you can also assume perfect information.  If consumers are limited in what they can know (because their information is provided via the internet....and they just can't get to certain stuff) then there is no way for them to make the informed decisions necessary for the market to force change.

I think for any SUPER libertarian (and I do know a few) who aren't just mindlessly pro-business - that consideration logically forces them to be pro net neutrality.  You can't restrict the flow of information and expect the market to be self-correcting. 

I get what you're saying, and I shouldn't look at it from a "limiting start-up businesses" perspective. I think my problem is the whole thing is so illogical (not having net neutrality) that it doesn't make sense. To me it would be like allowing trucking companies that pay extra to go 100mph, while everyone else is stuck going 55mph. I don't even know if that makes sense or not.

There has to be free-speech ramifications for this as well, right? Like Time Warner could block traffic to blogs and sites that are all about how much Time Warner sucks?

[blink]

I know this is kind of off-topic, but if net neutrality goes through, would the telecoms be required to provide access to high-speed internet everywhere? Because I know my parents would love to get something besides dial-up.

[wawa]

Nov 11, 2014 11:37:16 GMT -5 incogneato said:

I think Netflix, etc, can easily continue to have different tiers for their service- as in, person A pays 10/month for 10 movies, while person B pays $30/month for unlimited, etc.

The proposal here is that Netflix and Amazon could pay big money for faster Internet than anyone else who wants to host a video sharing site could afford, which means greatly limiting competition and throttling new entrants to the market which is bad for everyone.

It also means that companies with CLEAR competing interests (like time warner) could limit access to competing services. 

It'd be as if Walmart was also your electricity supplier - and could just have rolling blackouts across all Kmarts and Targets.   Or just charge Target out the nose for anything beyond enough juice to light a single bulb - which Target could afford to pay mostly likely - but also charge the same obscene fee to any random mom and pop store that wants to open and actually turn the lights on.  Obviously that can't happen - because electricity suppliers are heavily regulated as public utilities.

As best as I can tell, it's a fundamental question of whether internet access should be managed and regulated like a public utility. 

[elleblue]

Nov 11, 2014 11:45:37 GMT -5 wawa said:

Nov 11, 2014 11:37:16 GMT -5 incogneato said:

I think Netflix, etc, can easily continue to have different tiers for their service- as in, person A pays 10/month for 10 movies, while person B pays $30/month for unlimited, etc.

The proposal here is that Netflix and Amazon could pay big money for faster Internet than anyone else who wants to host a video sharing site could afford, which means greatly limiting competition and throttling new entrants to the market which is bad for everyone.

It also means that companies with CLEAR competing interests (like time warner) could limit access to competing services. 

It'd be as if Walmart was also your electricity supplier - and could just have rolling blackouts across all Kmarts and Targets.   Or just charge Target out the nose for anything beyond enough juice to light a single bulb - which Target could afford to pay mostly likely - but also charge the same obscene fee to any random mom and pop store that wants to open and actually turn the lights on.  Obviously that can't happen - because electricity suppliers are heavily regulated as public utilities.

As best as I can tell, it's a fundamental question of whether internet access should be managed and regulated like a public utility. 

Which is why Ted Cruz* thinks it's apt to compare it to Obamacare. Idiot. 

*incidentally my autocorrect thought Ted Cruz should be Ted Cry