GOP lawmakers shamed on billboards for trying to repeal net neutrality rules(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
GOP lawmakers shamed on billboards for trying to repeal net neutrality rules
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/pro-net-neutrality-billboards-shame-lawmakers-who-want-to-repeal-rules
117 comments
These sort of things always bother me when I am on the other side. They are just for galvanizing those who already agree. This is the biggest problem in our political discourse, no one ever attempt to have a discussion that changes minds.
In this case I am opposed to net neutrality and things like this, the fcc bot comments, and a "study" showing 75% of the electorate "doesn't understand" do nothing but make me want to entrench my beliefs further.
In this case I am opposed to net neutrality and things like this, the fcc bot comments, and a "study" showing 75% of the electorate "doesn't understand" do nothing but make me want to entrench my beliefs further.
How are you opposed to net neutrality? All it does is aim to keep anyone from controlling the pipes that connect the internet. My favorite way of thinking about NN is to compare it to toll roads. Without NN, you could end up with a situation where Honda buys a toll road and then charges more for people to drive Toyotas on their road. Or they could reserve the left hand "passing" lane for only people in Hondas. In the same way, Comcast could slow down your connection speeds when you try to connect to Netflix or charge you additionally to connect to Netflix's domain.
Good analogy; I think I can work within it.
It is entirely appropriate to limit the speed and size of large trucks (high bandwidth users) on roadways or charge them more. The ISPs need to be able to do this sort of economizing to help maintain everybody's min service guarantees and to a apply market force to the bloating of popular websites.
With regard to the censorship argument (only allowing Honda cars), I agree that a democratic government entity needs to have power here as roadways and the fiber under them are natural monopolies (why dig up a street twice?). But it seems fairly clear that the appropriate regulating body is at the size of the city which administers the land on which the distribution network is built--NOT the Feds. No city would allow something like that (only X brand cars allowed) to stand, the FCC is overkill.
I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Basically its a market, which suggest the ISPs are going to be doing this, whether its against the rules or not. If you make something so logical against the rules, it basically becomes another "look the other way" law; providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request.
I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls.
It is entirely appropriate to limit the speed and size of large trucks (high bandwidth users) on roadways or charge them more. The ISPs need to be able to do this sort of economizing to help maintain everybody's min service guarantees and to a apply market force to the bloating of popular websites.
With regard to the censorship argument (only allowing Honda cars), I agree that a democratic government entity needs to have power here as roadways and the fiber under them are natural monopolies (why dig up a street twice?). But it seems fairly clear that the appropriate regulating body is at the size of the city which administers the land on which the distribution network is built--NOT the Feds. No city would allow something like that (only X brand cars allowed) to stand, the FCC is overkill.
I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees. Basically its a market, which suggest the ISPs are going to be doing this, whether its against the rules or not. If you make something so logical against the rules, it basically becomes another "look the other way" law; providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request.
I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls.
It is entirely appropriate to limit the speed and size of large trucks (high bandwidth users) on roadways or charge them more.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. ISPs already get to sell their users as much or as little bandwidth as they choose to. If the ISP's users are sending a lot of traffic to one web site, that's only possible because the ISP's users are sending a lot of traffic. They can't stream movies unless they're already paying for a connection fast enough to stream movies. Which web site streams those movies doesn't matter.
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. ISPs already get to sell their users as much or as little bandwidth as they choose to. If the ISP's users are sending a lot of traffic to one web site, that's only possible because the ISP's users are sending a lot of traffic. They can't stream movies unless they're already paying for a connection fast enough to stream movies. Which web site streams those movies doesn't matter.
Furthermore I am not proposing that ISPs not be regulated. They should be to prevent abuse. I think cities and regional entities should be aggressively in this space, but not the FCC. Chattanooga TN is a good example.
By high bandwidth users I am referring more to companies like Netflix or a bloated news site than to end users. It would be easier for everyone if ISP and Netflix negotiated ``oversize'' rates than having individual consumer throttling. It doesn't have to be discriminatory, oversize rates could be triggered when traffic from a corporate entity exceeded some threshold rate.
Eh.
As an ISP you can't give your customers (the very vast majority, I realize that a small minority have symmetric connections) vastly asymmetric pipes (usually in the order of 10:1, if not 20:1), and then "complain" about how your inbound upstream traffic is asymmetric and thus "unfair" to the peering arrangements.
It is as it was designed.
Give users symmetric pipes and they'll use them differently. Far more uptake of offsite backup, other services from users with a lot of outbound bandwidth.
Will ISPs scream about how unfair it is if Dropbox, Crashplan, BackBlaze, Carbonite and the like start charging THEM more because "oh gosh, look, your users are sending far more data to us than we are to them, so you're abusing our peering relationship"?
It's a bunch of willfully ignorant BS. Design a traffic model and then complain that the usage pattern dictated by the traffic model is unfair to you, and therefore you need to double dip your billing.
As an ISP you can't give your customers (the very vast majority, I realize that a small minority have symmetric connections) vastly asymmetric pipes (usually in the order of 10:1, if not 20:1), and then "complain" about how your inbound upstream traffic is asymmetric and thus "unfair" to the peering arrangements.
It is as it was designed.
Give users symmetric pipes and they'll use them differently. Far more uptake of offsite backup, other services from users with a lot of outbound bandwidth.
Will ISPs scream about how unfair it is if Dropbox, Crashplan, BackBlaze, Carbonite and the like start charging THEM more because "oh gosh, look, your users are sending far more data to us than we are to them, so you're abusing our peering relationship"?
It's a bunch of willfully ignorant BS. Design a traffic model and then complain that the usage pattern dictated by the traffic model is unfair to you, and therefore you need to double dip your billing.
Exactly, let the ISPs design their traffic and billing model. The market has effects.
Now, you probably want the ISPs to be operated or regulated by your local government so that the marketplace they encourage is favorable to the citizens. But please no more federal regulations on the pipes of communication between citizens.
Now, you probably want the ISPs to be operated or regulated by your local government so that the marketplace they encourage is favorable to the citizens. But please no more federal regulations on the pipes of communication between citizens.
But Netflix already pays for their bandwidth! Everybody already has incentives to minimize it!
I love Netflix. Back when they paid for their bandwidth via the postal service, they paid for distribution and I paid them correspondingly. Then they switched to streaming and it was good for all, despite the immediate purchaser of distribution changing.
My point is that the cost of distribution is going to be paid one way or the other. I don't see why we should make federal rules about it. You really want a society where the national government is not in charge of communications.
My point is that the cost of distribution is going to be paid one way or the other. I don't see why we should make federal rules about it. You really want a society where the national government is not in charge of communications.
The immediate purchaser of the distribution never changed -- its still Netflix.
Netflix sends data via a number of backbone providers that charge Netflix for traffic. The backbone providers connect to other backbone providers via peering agreements. If the amount of traffic between the peers gets out of balance, they settle up via payments. Those payments eventually get passed on to the consumer that's how it should be.
Netflix sends data via a number of backbone providers that charge Netflix for traffic. The backbone providers connect to other backbone providers via peering agreements. If the amount of traffic between the peers gets out of balance, they settle up via payments. Those payments eventually get passed on to the consumer that's how it should be.
The government is not in charge of communications anyway. It's just saying "treat everyone equally" and leaves it at that.
Net neutrality (or the lack thereof) isn't about paying for what you use (your argument about trucks is incorrect because of this). It's about paying based on who you are, so your ISP can discriminate based on who the data is coming from.
The original analogy was correct, it's about toll roads where cars of the same size and build pay different prices depending on their brand. "You have a BMW, so you must have more money, so pay more, even though you use the same as a Toyota."
Net neutrality (or the lack thereof) isn't about paying for what you use (your argument about trucks is incorrect because of this). It's about paying based on who you are, so your ISP can discriminate based on who the data is coming from.
The original analogy was correct, it's about toll roads where cars of the same size and build pay different prices depending on their brand. "You have a BMW, so you must have more money, so pay more, even though you use the same as a Toyota."
With the truck argument I was just flushing out the analogy, which is a good one. Then, addressing the net neutrality part of the analogy and stating why I opposed the FCC's net neutrality rules: I disagree that it should be regulated at the federal level. It does not take a genius mayor or governor to say that a toll road should not be restricted to one brand of car.
>It does not take a genius mayor or governor to say that a toll road should not be restricted to one brand of car.
But it does take a genius mayor to also be fully aware of the more technical arguments thrown around by ISPs to fight regulation such as NN. We are not discussing roads. As much as the analogy helps, someone might not be there (who isn't working for ISPs) to tell the mayor or governor about it. A small town mayor might not have any idea what impacts a decision like that could have on the local area, and if they make the wrong choice, an entire town is basically held back from an open internet, and therefore communication, point of view.
As an aside, "flushing out the analogy" in this case would mean you were holding the trucks as high-bandwith users, like you've stated previously. I'm not sure if you were admitting a mistake with your comment or not, but I'd like to support the other comments arguments against this.
But it does take a genius mayor to also be fully aware of the more technical arguments thrown around by ISPs to fight regulation such as NN. We are not discussing roads. As much as the analogy helps, someone might not be there (who isn't working for ISPs) to tell the mayor or governor about it. A small town mayor might not have any idea what impacts a decision like that could have on the local area, and if they make the wrong choice, an entire town is basically held back from an open internet, and therefore communication, point of view.
As an aside, "flushing out the analogy" in this case would mean you were holding the trucks as high-bandwith users, like you've stated previously. I'm not sure if you were admitting a mistake with your comment or not, but I'd like to support the other comments arguments against this.
> By high bandwidth users I am referring more to companies like Netflix or a bloated news site than to end users.
I'm not sure I understand. Netflix pays for it's high bandwidth to deliver data to users. And you pay for your bandwidth to receive that data.
You could have 10 services that are using bandwidth equally or 1 service using (and paying for) 10x the bandwidth -- what is the significant difference here? The total data is the same.
Net Neutrality isn't about the "what" it's about the "who". Netflix is a big popular service so your ISP wants to extract more money from them -- not because of what they do, but who they are. 1 big service vs. 10 smaller ones.
I'm not sure I understand. Netflix pays for it's high bandwidth to deliver data to users. And you pay for your bandwidth to receive that data.
You could have 10 services that are using bandwidth equally or 1 service using (and paying for) 10x the bandwidth -- what is the significant difference here? The total data is the same.
Net Neutrality isn't about the "what" it's about the "who". Netflix is a big popular service so your ISP wants to extract more money from them -- not because of what they do, but who they are. 1 big service vs. 10 smaller ones.
As a thought experiment, imagine a world where household customers were provided internet for free and ISPs earned all their money from the outbound traffic on servers. Want a particular cable channel? Pay the company operating that server. Want the news? The news company earns money from advertising so they deliver it to you. Like you point out total data is the same.
The premise that the ISP payment should be born by only one side of the transaction should not be codified into law.
Also I do agree we should regulate protections for the ``who''. I just think these should come from the cities under whose streets the fiber is laid, not the FCC. There is even a strong case to be made for municipal ISPs.
The premise that the ISP payment should be born by only one side of the transaction should not be codified into law.
Also I do agree we should regulate protections for the ``who''. I just think these should come from the cities under whose streets the fiber is laid, not the FCC. There is even a strong case to be made for municipal ISPs.
ISP have peering agreements with other networks -- everybody pays for their connections on both sides. Big ISP #1 pays big ISP #2 to carry their data and vice-versa but often the traffic just cancels out.
If household customers were provided internet for free and ISPs earned all their money from servers the cost would be distributed through this network. ISP #1 with the customers would charge ISP #2 with the servers for the traffic and it would somewhat balance out (as ISP #2 can make no money if it can't get to customers). Netflix is, for example, already paying your ISP indirectly to deliver content to you when it pays its ISP.
I think you're confused about what net neutrality means. ISPs can still charge whatever they want how they want as long as they don't discriminate on the content of the data (who it's from and what it is). The quantity of data, the physical location of the data, and whatever else is free game. In your thought experiment, the net neutrality has no impact one way or the other.
If household customers were provided internet for free and ISPs earned all their money from servers the cost would be distributed through this network. ISP #1 with the customers would charge ISP #2 with the servers for the traffic and it would somewhat balance out (as ISP #2 can make no money if it can't get to customers). Netflix is, for example, already paying your ISP indirectly to deliver content to you when it pays its ISP.
I think you're confused about what net neutrality means. ISPs can still charge whatever they want how they want as long as they don't discriminate on the content of the data (who it's from and what it is). The quantity of data, the physical location of the data, and whatever else is free game. In your thought experiment, the net neutrality has no impact one way or the other.
My vision for an internet renaissance would be a collection of many small interconnected ISPs, some serving end users and some backbone-y like a trans-arctic link.
But should the transarctic link be able to make extra money prioritizing traffic between financial centers in NY, London, and Tokyo? I say yes.
More at home, lets say the peering agreements were set up with a DNSy system allowing you to do breadth first search for the cheapest route to serve data from one domain name to another. The cost ought to vary depending on which path through the small ISPs you take, for example an ISP which had Netflix servers high in its topology could advertise cheaper rates for netflix.com requests to its neighbors.
Such a market system would be required for my renaissance of the internet vision. And consequently, consumer-facing ISPs would have to be allowed to discriminate against high volumes of requests from domains which it cannot cheaply access. One way of correcting this would be charging those domains on the side, i.e. discriminating.
You would also need to be able to discriminate on content type and other pricing schemes to help fund those backbone ISPs. If traders in NY, London, and Tokyo will help finance an undersea link through higher pricing for preferential service, why not let that happen?
You still need regulation and democratic oversight of the local ISPs though, to prevent corruption from harming consumer access.
Finally there is the concern that this would unfairly burden small content providers who have only one server. But this is silly even if it costs more to obtain data from the breadth-first search to this lone server in the middle of nowhere, its a small volume so you can ignore it and average that cost in elsewhere.
Thus regulating for net neutrality directly impede the possible creation of a more distributed, more free system. In such a system all data is inherently not equal and the system could never function if we pretended it was.
But should the transarctic link be able to make extra money prioritizing traffic between financial centers in NY, London, and Tokyo? I say yes.
More at home, lets say the peering agreements were set up with a DNSy system allowing you to do breadth first search for the cheapest route to serve data from one domain name to another. The cost ought to vary depending on which path through the small ISPs you take, for example an ISP which had Netflix servers high in its topology could advertise cheaper rates for netflix.com requests to its neighbors.
Such a market system would be required for my renaissance of the internet vision. And consequently, consumer-facing ISPs would have to be allowed to discriminate against high volumes of requests from domains which it cannot cheaply access. One way of correcting this would be charging those domains on the side, i.e. discriminating.
You would also need to be able to discriminate on content type and other pricing schemes to help fund those backbone ISPs. If traders in NY, London, and Tokyo will help finance an undersea link through higher pricing for preferential service, why not let that happen?
You still need regulation and democratic oversight of the local ISPs though, to prevent corruption from harming consumer access.
Finally there is the concern that this would unfairly burden small content providers who have only one server. But this is silly even if it costs more to obtain data from the breadth-first search to this lone server in the middle of nowhere, its a small volume so you can ignore it and average that cost in elsewhere.
Thus regulating for net neutrality directly impede the possible creation of a more distributed, more free system. In such a system all data is inherently not equal and the system could never function if we pretended it was.
95% of this is how the system works already. Routes are chosen based on the potential delivery cost as well as performance and congestion.
> If traders in NY, London, and Tokyo will help finance an undersea link through higher pricing for preferential service, why not let that happen?
One can already pay more for faster service by paying for priority traffic (QoS). One could even pay for a private link. It happens all the time. In fact, my business already pays for multiple tiers of traffic for different purposes (video streaming, phones, regular Internet traffic). This not any sort of violation of net neutrality.
Honestly, net neutrality is not significant impediment. I would argue that it boils down to simply treating all traffic fairly. If you can imagine a scenario where an ISP could treat your data or another service's data unfairly, it's probably a violation of net neutrality.
> If traders in NY, London, and Tokyo will help finance an undersea link through higher pricing for preferential service, why not let that happen?
One can already pay more for faster service by paying for priority traffic (QoS). One could even pay for a private link. It happens all the time. In fact, my business already pays for multiple tiers of traffic for different purposes (video streaming, phones, regular Internet traffic). This not any sort of violation of net neutrality.
Honestly, net neutrality is not significant impediment. I would argue that it boils down to simply treating all traffic fairly. If you can imagine a scenario where an ISP could treat your data or another service's data unfairly, it's probably a violation of net neutrality.
I think we have reached a sufficiently small statement, that all traffic should be treated fairly, that we agree.
But I still don't think it is appropriate or even productively useful for the federal government to mandate this and declare what is fair. And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements with:
1. the end consumers,
2. intermediaries, per peer networks--thank you for calling these to my attention, and
3. from the domain of origin if serving that domain from external ISPs incurs a higher than average costs for the local ISP.
National scale network neutrality laws would make 3 very difficult and I absolutely do not think selectively applying 3 to only the flushest companies is wrong.
Why not let cities, who already have to have plans for integrating cable into roadways be the regulatory/ownership entities?
But I still don't think it is appropriate or even productively useful for the federal government to mandate this and declare what is fair. And ISPs should have the right to use their position to get payment agreements with:
1. the end consumers,
2. intermediaries, per peer networks--thank you for calling these to my attention, and
3. from the domain of origin if serving that domain from external ISPs incurs a higher than average costs for the local ISP.
National scale network neutrality laws would make 3 very difficult and I absolutely do not think selectively applying 3 to only the flushest companies is wrong.
Why not let cities, who already have to have plans for integrating cable into roadways be the regulatory/ownership entities?
From your list, it's only #3 that makes no sense. The traffic is coming from their peer (which could have passed through dozens of networks) -- the ultimate source of that data is immaterial. There are no higher costs per domain for the ISP. There is just bytes and their quantity. Since ISPs already charge for quantity of data, there is no scenario where charging for the origin domain could possibly be fair. It is by definition unfair.
The fact is that nearly all service providers in North America are monopolies (or duopolies). This is the reason the federal government needs to be involved. There are no market forces to correct for being unfairly treated by your ISP. You literally have no choice. If your ISP were to charge you $5 more to visit hacker news, what could you do? What if hacker news had to pay your ISP $5? What if they just didn't bother?
The fact is that nearly all service providers in North America are monopolies (or duopolies). This is the reason the federal government needs to be involved. There are no market forces to correct for being unfairly treated by your ISP. You literally have no choice. If your ISP were to charge you $5 more to visit hacker news, what could you do? What if hacker news had to pay your ISP $5? What if they just didn't bother?
> Why not let cities, who already have to have plans for integrating cable into roadways be the regulatory/ownership entities?
If these things haven't already been killed; they will be. Almost all municipal broadband projects are dead or dying. It some states it's now illegal for cities to provide broadband services. I would totally advocate for this but since the broadband monopoly effectively controls the legislature through aggressive lobbying this is a massive dead end.
If these things haven't already been killed; they will be. Almost all municipal broadband projects are dead or dying. It some states it's now illegal for cities to provide broadband services. I would totally advocate for this but since the broadband monopoly effectively controls the legislature through aggressive lobbying this is a massive dead end.
But the users and Netflix already paid for this bandwidth?
This is like double dipping from the ISP.
The exact same argument is used by republicans when they want to do away with capital gains tax xor corporate tax. Or one of income, property, and sales taxes.
The tax is gonna get collected, but whoever is the primary check writer can have market effects on the system. If Netflix had to write some of the check, we may see more investment in compression technologies and towards-the-edges network distribution.
The tax is gonna get collected, but whoever is the primary check writer can have market effects on the system. If Netflix had to write some of the check, we may see more investment in compression technologies and towards-the-edges network distribution.
If Netflix had to write some of the check
You say this like you think Netflix is somehow using the internet for free.
You say this like you think Netflix is somehow using the internet for free.
Correction: some more of the check
Those are not the ISP's users, and the ISP has already been paid for the traffic going there.
Actually this is a good thread of thought that I need to think about more.
My first inclination is that an ISP is like the taxman. If and end user transacts with netflix, then a tax is collected by the entity that provided the facilitating infrastructure. The tax is on the economic transaction, not one party xor the other. Just as government funds roads by a variety of taxes on different entities, individuals and companies.
My first inclination is that an ISP is like the taxman. If and end user transacts with netflix, then a tax is collected by the entity that provided the facilitating infrastructure. The tax is on the economic transaction, not one party xor the other. Just as government funds roads by a variety of taxes on different entities, individuals and companies.
Why are you concerned with censorship by the Feds? I may be completely off base, but I've seen corruption and abuse of power be much more common at the local level. In fact, I often see the Fed stepping in to help alleviate those problems. Maybe my data is skewed.
I would actually agree with you on that. Many examples could probably be had in the area of policing. In my own area Cincinnati has some sort of evil monopoly deal with Cincinnati Bell.
But its about the possible scale of abuse. If the federal government abuses its power what you get is the early USSR. If a city abuses its power what you get is a city you can leave.
But its about the possible scale of abuse. If the federal government abuses its power what you get is the early USSR. If a city abuses its power what you get is a city you can leave.
> I am concerned about censorship mostly by the Feds, less so by private utilities, and less still by city halls.
It sounds like what you object to is not network neutrality but rather having it imposed at the federal rather than the state level. But there are two major problems with that.
The first is that interconnection is inherently interstate. Netflix might have no physical presence in Tennessee at all and reach all customers there through an interconnect in Atlanta. Is Tennessee supposed to regulate commerce in Georgia? If Tennessee and Georgia have conflicting rules, which ones control?
This sort of thing is why the interstate commerce clause exists. It's not some fraud where the feds get to regulate intra-state non-commerce because reasons, it's actually black -letter interstate commerce.
Which leads to the second problem, which is that there is a thing called preemption. What it means is that the states aren't allowed to regulate something once the feds have already put their bootprints on it.
You can argue that the feds should stay out of it entirely -- repeal the Communications Act -- but that isn't what the Republicans are actually doing.
> providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request.
This is not something major ISPs actually do regardless, because they know where their bread is buttered. See also Qwest Communications for what happens if they try to stand up. This is why everyone is focused on end-to-end encryption -- trusting your ISP is foolish.
> I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements.
The problem with the free market argument is that it's not a free market. Comcast has millions of customers that cannot be reached without going through Comcast. You can't go to Verizon and negotiate better access to Comcast subscribers, and you can't pay for access to Verizon subscribers instead of Comcast subscribers because you need both.
Consumer-level ISPs have market power. You either regulate them or they abuse their local monopolies.
> I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees.
Endpoints marking packets for QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits and everything still works anyway, because contention in the core of the network only happens in poorly designed networks that are too oversubscribed.
It sounds like what you object to is not network neutrality but rather having it imposed at the federal rather than the state level. But there are two major problems with that.
The first is that interconnection is inherently interstate. Netflix might have no physical presence in Tennessee at all and reach all customers there through an interconnect in Atlanta. Is Tennessee supposed to regulate commerce in Georgia? If Tennessee and Georgia have conflicting rules, which ones control?
This sort of thing is why the interstate commerce clause exists. It's not some fraud where the feds get to regulate intra-state non-commerce because reasons, it's actually black -letter interstate commerce.
Which leads to the second problem, which is that there is a thing called preemption. What it means is that the states aren't allowed to regulate something once the feds have already put their bootprints on it.
You can argue that the feds should stay out of it entirely -- repeal the Communications Act -- but that isn't what the Republicans are actually doing.
> providing the federal government with a legal club with which to beat companies it is not pleased with, perhaps when an ISP refuses to comply with an inappropriate information request.
This is not something major ISPs actually do regardless, because they know where their bread is buttered. See also Qwest Communications for what happens if they try to stand up. This is why everyone is focused on end-to-end encryption -- trusting your ISP is foolish.
> I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements.
The problem with the free market argument is that it's not a free market. Comcast has millions of customers that cannot be reached without going through Comcast. You can't go to Verizon and negotiate better access to Comcast subscribers, and you can't pay for access to Verizon subscribers instead of Comcast subscribers because you need both.
Consumer-level ISPs have market power. You either regulate them or they abuse their local monopolies.
> I think there is a real economic and business case for ISPs discriminating based on bandwidth requirements. You have to throttle streaming and prioritize phone packets because they need stronger latency guarantees.
Endpoints marking packets for QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits and everything still works anyway, because contention in the core of the network only happens in poorly designed networks that are too oversubscribed.
Thank you for calling my attention to the Communications Act. And you condense my thoughts well; one of my two arguments is that communication is too abstract a thing to be regulated or abridged by the interstate commerce clause. I.e. for interstate communication the federal government shouldn't be able to touch it due to the 1st amendment. I'm not necessarily as opposed to foreign communication being under commerce. But repealing net neutrality is still a step towards this, and in my FCC comment I even acknowledge that I don't support repeal for the official, republican stated reason.
I agree with you about end-to-end encryption but the Qwest Communications thing I think helps make my first point. We shouldn't want the federal government having such economic and legal leverage in this space.
My second reason for opposing net neutrality deals with > the problem with the free market argument.
ISPs are a monopoly and should be regulated or government owned. Just at municipal and regional levels. To do this you have to allow money transactions higher up in the network topology. To make the market work this way with regional ISPs you have to be able to charge where the content is coming from as well as charging for consumption at the edges. FCC's net neutrality would codify into law a system that makes that legally difficult. I.e. we shouldn't pass a rule today that makes a more ideal system in the future more difficult to develop.
> Endpoint marking packets of QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits...
But not their own QoS bits for telephone and cable services. Likewise why not let Vonage or Netflix pay for this special treatment?
I agree with you about end-to-end encryption but the Qwest Communications thing I think helps make my first point. We shouldn't want the federal government having such economic and legal leverage in this space.
My second reason for opposing net neutrality deals with > the problem with the free market argument.
ISPs are a monopoly and should be regulated or government owned. Just at municipal and regional levels. To do this you have to allow money transactions higher up in the network topology. To make the market work this way with regional ISPs you have to be able to charge where the content is coming from as well as charging for consumption at the edges. FCC's net neutrality would codify into law a system that makes that legally difficult. I.e. we shouldn't pass a rule today that makes a more ideal system in the future more difficult to develop.
> Endpoint marking packets of QoS has nothing to do with network neutrality. Moreover, in practice most if not all residential ISPs ignore the QoS bits...
But not their own QoS bits for telephone and cable services. Likewise why not let Vonage or Netflix pay for this special treatment?
> one of my two arguments is that communication is too abstract a thing to be regulated or abridged by the interstate commerce clause.
You have to separate the speech from the infrastructure. It's no argument to say that a law requiring UPS and FedEx to deliver packages to all households (instead of only white households) is a free speech violation, just because packages contain documents and other media. The law isn't proscribing any particular content, it's only requiring common carriers to be common carriers.
> I agree with you about end-to-end encryption but the Qwest Communications thing I think helps make my first point. We shouldn't want the federal government having such economic and legal leverage in this space.
The source of the leverage isn't legislation, it's jurisdiction. ISPs have huge physical infrastructure investments that they can't just pick up and move to another country if the US government is leaning on them, so they fold.
> To do this you have to allow money transactions higher up in the network topology.
This I think is the root of the misunderstanding.
It makes no sense to have Joe pay Comcast directly and have Joe pay Comcast by way of Netflix. All that does is create unneeded transaction costs for no reason, compared with having Joe pay the total amount going to Comcast directly to Comcast.
It's only a subterfuge calculated to disguise the fact that the Comcast aims to leverage their ISP monopoly to damage competitors in video content. Netflix has to pay Comcast actual money, but Comcast-video nominally paying Comcast-ISP is just moving money between two pockets in the same pants. They want to give their own video service an unfair advantage. There is no reason to engage in that inefficient money laundering triangle unless there is something dubious going on that requires artificial complexity to obfuscate.
> But not their own QoS bits for telephone and cable services. Likewise why not let Vonage or Netflix pay for this special treatment?
Because it allows the monopoly abuse subterfuge, as opposed to having the ISP sell the feature directly to the end users. Which apparently nobody wants enough for it to even be offered.
You have to separate the speech from the infrastructure. It's no argument to say that a law requiring UPS and FedEx to deliver packages to all households (instead of only white households) is a free speech violation, just because packages contain documents and other media. The law isn't proscribing any particular content, it's only requiring common carriers to be common carriers.
> I agree with you about end-to-end encryption but the Qwest Communications thing I think helps make my first point. We shouldn't want the federal government having such economic and legal leverage in this space.
The source of the leverage isn't legislation, it's jurisdiction. ISPs have huge physical infrastructure investments that they can't just pick up and move to another country if the US government is leaning on them, so they fold.
> To do this you have to allow money transactions higher up in the network topology.
This I think is the root of the misunderstanding.
It makes no sense to have Joe pay Comcast directly and have Joe pay Comcast by way of Netflix. All that does is create unneeded transaction costs for no reason, compared with having Joe pay the total amount going to Comcast directly to Comcast.
It's only a subterfuge calculated to disguise the fact that the Comcast aims to leverage their ISP monopoly to damage competitors in video content. Netflix has to pay Comcast actual money, but Comcast-video nominally paying Comcast-ISP is just moving money between two pockets in the same pants. They want to give their own video service an unfair advantage. There is no reason to engage in that inefficient money laundering triangle unless there is something dubious going on that requires artificial complexity to obfuscate.
> But not their own QoS bits for telephone and cable services. Likewise why not let Vonage or Netflix pay for this special treatment?
Because it allows the monopoly abuse subterfuge, as opposed to having the ISP sell the feature directly to the end users. Which apparently nobody wants enough for it to even be offered.
First I want to say you are encouraging me to research :)
> You have to separate the speech from the infrastructure. Its no argument to say that a law requiring UPS and FedEx to deliver packages to all households...is a free speech violation, just because packages contain documents and other media...common carriers.
I would argue that communications are an abstract thing, not subject interstate commerce or federal regulations upon common carriers. I would argue the abstractness, an idea exists at once everywhere, there is no transporting over state lines that needs to be done. There is not even a net flow of electrons and the infrastructure is static. Everything facilitated by the ISP has this nature by default unless it is otherwise sold as some specific product you can buy like a movie.
And the point of this argument would be to reduce the legal surface area for lawsuits and executive enforcement by the federal government on ISPs.
> The source of leverage isn't legislation, it's jurisdiction.
I am not sure if I understand. ISPs have so many laws governing them and are so big (causal relationship?) that they are bound to be always in violation if the government looks hard enough. It would benefit freedom of speech to reduce both.
> This I think is the root of the misunderstanding.
Sorry I am starting to confuse different responses, but the misunderstanding seems to be...I am not arguing about whether NN would help address some shortcomings of the current setup. I am saying NN would further entrench the current state of affairs and could prevent a better one from ever being built.
> You have to separate the speech from the infrastructure. Its no argument to say that a law requiring UPS and FedEx to deliver packages to all households...is a free speech violation, just because packages contain documents and other media...common carriers.
I would argue that communications are an abstract thing, not subject interstate commerce or federal regulations upon common carriers. I would argue the abstractness, an idea exists at once everywhere, there is no transporting over state lines that needs to be done. There is not even a net flow of electrons and the infrastructure is static. Everything facilitated by the ISP has this nature by default unless it is otherwise sold as some specific product you can buy like a movie.
And the point of this argument would be to reduce the legal surface area for lawsuits and executive enforcement by the federal government on ISPs.
> The source of leverage isn't legislation, it's jurisdiction.
I am not sure if I understand. ISPs have so many laws governing them and are so big (causal relationship?) that they are bound to be always in violation if the government looks hard enough. It would benefit freedom of speech to reduce both.
> This I think is the root of the misunderstanding.
Sorry I am starting to confuse different responses, but the misunderstanding seems to be...I am not arguing about whether NN would help address some shortcomings of the current setup. I am saying NN would further entrench the current state of affairs and could prevent a better one from ever being built.
> I would argue that communications are an abstract thing, not subject interstate commerce or federal regulations upon common carriers. I would argue the abstractness, an idea exists at once everywhere, there is no transporting over state lines that needs to be done. There is not even a net flow of electrons and the infrastructure is static. Everything facilitated by the ISP has this nature by default unless it is otherwise sold as some specific product you can buy like a movie.
If there is nothing of material existence crossing state lines then we should be able to just cut the fiber at every state border without causing any trouble, right?
You're arguing that it is inappropriate to regulate interstate couriers because ideas are very abstract. But the thing being regulated isn't the ideas. It's the equivalent of prohibiting interstate electric utilities from charging monopoly prices to any press company that needs electricity to run their printing press, when the electric utility owns their own competing press company. It's not a regulation of words or bits or electrons, it's a regulation of utility companies and anti-competitive business contracts.
> And the point of this argument would be to reduce the legal surface area for lawsuits and executive enforcement by the federal government on ISPs.
The FCC is part of the executive branch. Congress has given it the authority to regulate telecommunications companies. The executive doesn't need any particular rules to put pressure on companies because it has the authority to make new ones at any time.
Moreover, network neutrality rules shouldn't provide any leverage to the executive because there is nothing to punish unless the company is violating network neutrality.
I completely agree that a rule should always either be enforced or repealed, but the solution to that in a case where the rule is meritorious is the first one. If the rules are actually enforced then there won't be everyday violations for the executive to use as a pretext to punish other behavior.
> I am not sure if I understand. ISPs have so many laws governing them and are so big (causal relationship?) that they are bound to be always in violation if the government looks hard enough. It would benefit freedom of speech to reduce both.
If that is your goal then you have to go to the root. The reason ISPs have to be heavily regulated is that they lack vigorous competition, which prevents market forces from doing the work for you. In order to have fewer regulations you need more competition.
This is not a chicken and egg problem. You don't need one before the other because you can do both at the same time. What you can't do is to get rid of the regulations without first having effective competition, or the result will be monopoly abuse.
And we know of effective solutions, such as local loop unbundling. Or even better, municipal-owned last mile fiber leased per-customer to multiple competing ISPs.
> I am not arguing about whether NN would help address some shortcomings of the current setup. I am saying NN would further entrench the current state of affairs and could prevent a better one from ever being built.
The problem with that argument is that NN violations are not a prerequisite to any positive outcome, so prohibiting them causes no harm. In a competitive market they wouldn't even happen because none of the hundreds of competing ISPs would individually have enough market power to extract any such concessions from anyone. In that case NN rules would be unnecessary but still harmless because they would only be redundant with market forces.
What you're after is potentially meritorious, but you have to do things in a sensible order. You can't remove the anti-monopoly rules until after you first remove the monopoly. But you don't have to remove the anti-monopoly rules in order to remove the monopoly -- so start there and then object to NN as an unnecessary redundancy after you've successfully eliminated its justification.
If there is nothing of material existence crossing state lines then we should be able to just cut the fiber at every state border without causing any trouble, right?
You're arguing that it is inappropriate to regulate interstate couriers because ideas are very abstract. But the thing being regulated isn't the ideas. It's the equivalent of prohibiting interstate electric utilities from charging monopoly prices to any press company that needs electricity to run their printing press, when the electric utility owns their own competing press company. It's not a regulation of words or bits or electrons, it's a regulation of utility companies and anti-competitive business contracts.
> And the point of this argument would be to reduce the legal surface area for lawsuits and executive enforcement by the federal government on ISPs.
The FCC is part of the executive branch. Congress has given it the authority to regulate telecommunications companies. The executive doesn't need any particular rules to put pressure on companies because it has the authority to make new ones at any time.
Moreover, network neutrality rules shouldn't provide any leverage to the executive because there is nothing to punish unless the company is violating network neutrality.
I completely agree that a rule should always either be enforced or repealed, but the solution to that in a case where the rule is meritorious is the first one. If the rules are actually enforced then there won't be everyday violations for the executive to use as a pretext to punish other behavior.
> I am not sure if I understand. ISPs have so many laws governing them and are so big (causal relationship?) that they are bound to be always in violation if the government looks hard enough. It would benefit freedom of speech to reduce both.
If that is your goal then you have to go to the root. The reason ISPs have to be heavily regulated is that they lack vigorous competition, which prevents market forces from doing the work for you. In order to have fewer regulations you need more competition.
This is not a chicken and egg problem. You don't need one before the other because you can do both at the same time. What you can't do is to get rid of the regulations without first having effective competition, or the result will be monopoly abuse.
And we know of effective solutions, such as local loop unbundling. Or even better, municipal-owned last mile fiber leased per-customer to multiple competing ISPs.
> I am not arguing about whether NN would help address some shortcomings of the current setup. I am saying NN would further entrench the current state of affairs and could prevent a better one from ever being built.
The problem with that argument is that NN violations are not a prerequisite to any positive outcome, so prohibiting them causes no harm. In a competitive market they wouldn't even happen because none of the hundreds of competing ISPs would individually have enough market power to extract any such concessions from anyone. In that case NN rules would be unnecessary but still harmless because they would only be redundant with market forces.
What you're after is potentially meritorious, but you have to do things in a sensible order. You can't remove the anti-monopoly rules until after you first remove the monopoly. But you don't have to remove the anti-monopoly rules in order to remove the monopoly -- so start there and then object to NN as an unnecessary redundancy after you've successfully eliminated its justification.
I really appreciate you giving a good, legally intelligent critique to my thoughts. Thank you.
On comparing to electric utilities I would counter with three things: first many of the regulations upon them are state or local level, which I think are appropriate for ISPs. Second, where the federal government is involved, there is a physical good being transferred across state lines--power. Finally one can make national security arguments for federal electricity oversight. Again I argue there is no concrete good being distributed by telecommunications networks. Only abstract. There should be a legal distinction, although I do not know enough to say if there is already.
On doing things in a sensible order, I respect your thoughts, but politically I am inclined to disagree. Comcast et al have big legal teams and lobbying expenses for a reason, and I think this only further entrenches the big monopolies. I think that NN would be sufficiently difficult to enforce and likewise to defend against in court that it basically amounts to a law giving the executive more power over ISPs for possible future violations of privacy and free speech rights.
Perhaps more people on here could agree with me if I advertised my stance as breaking up the big ISPs. But the FCC's net neutrality is the current topic in this space.
On comparing to electric utilities I would counter with three things: first many of the regulations upon them are state or local level, which I think are appropriate for ISPs. Second, where the federal government is involved, there is a physical good being transferred across state lines--power. Finally one can make national security arguments for federal electricity oversight. Again I argue there is no concrete good being distributed by telecommunications networks. Only abstract. There should be a legal distinction, although I do not know enough to say if there is already.
On doing things in a sensible order, I respect your thoughts, but politically I am inclined to disagree. Comcast et al have big legal teams and lobbying expenses for a reason, and I think this only further entrenches the big monopolies. I think that NN would be sufficiently difficult to enforce and likewise to defend against in court that it basically amounts to a law giving the executive more power over ISPs for possible future violations of privacy and free speech rights.
Perhaps more people on here could agree with me if I advertised my stance as breaking up the big ISPs. But the FCC's net neutrality is the current topic in this space.
Also, I know this is being cheeky, but you could cut the fiber at state lines and get the system to work. Should Paul revere's lantern in the north church have been imperially regulated for fairness if it's light crossed state lines?
> charge them more.
You are free to do so.
That you aren't is a conservative myth to discredit net neutrality.
You are free to do so.
That you aren't is a conservative myth to discredit net neutrality.
I see your point on the billboards, but I don't understand why you're lumping that in with the FCC bot comment issue (shouldn't we should call out government agencies when they lie or mislead us?) or the study you mentioned (should we not conduct any studies of people's knowledge/beliefs?).
The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules. I posted my comments and it is not even possible to find them in the echo chamber without a priori knowing the number. If you actually scrolled through posts you would find my post surrounded on either side by 100+ verbatim copies of the same bot post.
My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085
On the study, (1) I think the term "net neutrality" was very politically chosen and (2) I think people are more intelligent and act in their own interests more than studies like this give them credit for.
My comments: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10522187689085
On the study, (1) I think the term "net neutrality" was very politically chosen and (2) I think people are more intelligent and act in their own interests more than studies like this give them credit for.
[deleted]
>>The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules.
I thought it was the opposite. People even traced down the anti-net neutrality bots to be from mostly one organization.
Also, I read your comment. It was well constructed, but I would say that the FCC does not profit from wireless spectrum auctions. The auctions exist to ensure the spectrum owner has a vested interest in using the spectrum in a utility maximizing way.
I thought it was the opposite. People even traced down the anti-net neutrality bots to be from mostly one organization.
Also, I read your comment. It was well constructed, but I would say that the FCC does not profit from wireless spectrum auctions. The auctions exist to ensure the spectrum owner has a vested interest in using the spectrum in a utility maximizing way.
Thanks for reading you might be the first!
I condemn the bots on both sides. They are both trying to galvanize their base rather than facilitate a discussion.
The FCC does profit. But its not like they are stealing that money, they literally create value out of thin air by being the authority that says you are not allowed to interfere with others' spectrum space. But the profit is undisputable, see https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wirel...
The Federal Reserve does the same thing.
The FCC does profit. But its not like they are stealing that money, they literally create value out of thin air by being the authority that says you are not allowed to interfere with others' spectrum space. But the profit is undisputable, see https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-rakes-in-45-billion-from-wirel...
The Federal Reserve does the same thing.
I mean, the alternative would be that everyone gets to use all spectrum whenever they want, and then it would just go to whoever is willing to put the most power into the signal that day. That's a horrendous situation.
> The majority of the bot posts were opposed to the change in rules.
To my understanding, that's false. Lots of humans were copy/pasting suggestions from various websites, but analysis showed that bot posts, including issues like dead people posting comments, comments posted under people's identities without their permission, etc, were anti-net neutrality.
To my understanding, that's false. Lots of humans were copy/pasting suggestions from various websites, but analysis showed that bot posts, including issues like dead people posting comments, comments posted under people's identities without their permission, etc, were anti-net neutrality.
Correction: the majority of the bots were opposed to the net neutrality rule.
> no one ever attempt to have a discussion that changes minds.
Ok, so, let's do it (maybe).
Are you in Denver? Let's have a beer.
More than likely, you aren't here. Still, try https://www.meetup.com/ and try going to a meetup of a different echo-chamber-y-thingy. They only way through this mess of politics is words, a lot of them. Better than bullets, I figure.
Also, anyone that wants to have a beer in Denver and talk (about anything, really, I'm not picky), lets try and set up a meet-up somewhere.
Ok, so, let's do it (maybe).
Are you in Denver? Let's have a beer.
More than likely, you aren't here. Still, try https://www.meetup.com/ and try going to a meetup of a different echo-chamber-y-thingy. They only way through this mess of politics is words, a lot of them. Better than bullets, I figure.
Also, anyone that wants to have a beer in Denver and talk (about anything, really, I'm not picky), lets try and set up a meet-up somewhere.
Hi Balgair, sorry your comment got lost in my stream but this is a good suggestion. I am in the Cincinnati area.
the politicians were paid to oppose net neutrality, there is no conversation to be had with them. All we can try to do is make it not worth the money they have been brided with to do this bad thing.
I wish there were less money in politics and no one likes backdoor schmoozing. But I have more faith in our elected officials character, in general. I think most politicians aren't being bought, they are just accepting money from people they already agreed with.
It's also hard to blame a politician in Tennessee for lobbying for policies favored by companies that have tens of thousands of unionized employees in her state, over opposition from California companies that employ almost nobody in her state.
This is a good point to. People may disagree and say that a representative should get elected on their beliefs and then follow them truly, unhypocritically. Or that elected representatives have a job description to maximize benefit to their constituents. Its both I suppose.
So you are willingly voting corrupt politicians, and pointing corruption only makes you prouder of your choices? mmkay.
Even if one were to assume that most politicians were corrupt, then still you vote for those who corruptly favor the policies you prefer. While I wish there were less money in politics, I do not agree with the premise that a moneyed cause is necessarily a bad cause.
One advantage of repealing all net neutrality and letting Comcast milk the Netflixes of the world is that it'll encourage big population centers like San Francisco or New York to seize the fiber with eminent domain and give it to e.g. the local electric company to run. Or at least apply their own local net neutrality standards to the regional Comcast branch.
I've always thought that was a better solution than involving the feds anyways. Why do people from California need to beg senators from Alabama to stop Comcast from screwing with their local fiber?
The last mile connection seems to be the only important one anyways: It would be feasible for someone like Netflix to hook together all the big cities themselves, but they can't dig up all the streets to lay their own fiber.
I've always thought that was a better solution than involving the feds anyways. Why do people from California need to beg senators from Alabama to stop Comcast from screwing with their local fiber?
The last mile connection seems to be the only important one anyways: It would be feasible for someone like Netflix to hook together all the big cities themselves, but they can't dig up all the streets to lay their own fiber.
What makes you think California would do better on its own? California is an infrastructure backwater, due to anti-development policies. If you live in the shadow of Comcast Center in Philly, you've probably got two fiber providers to chose from. If you live in San Francisco you probably don't have fiber at all. (Philadelphians also have pretty decent public transit, while San Franciscans have ... BART. I posit that those things are not unrelated.)
I don't think California specifically would be better off, for the reasons you describe. It was mostly intended to raise the question: "If nobody around the companies and people advocating for Net Neutrality actually wants it, why should a higher power intervene on their behalf?" The headline seems to give the impression that it's only federal Republicans blocking them, which if true would make you think they would prefer to have more local control.
I haven't heard any net neutrality advocates give a good argument for that yet. I could imagine "It's easier to have one standard than 50, for each state", but we don't seem to currently have too many disparate Net Neutrality laws that need to be unified. Or "Even unenlightened rural areas deserve open internet" - but that's not convincing if the big tech cities don't even have it yet.
I suppose there's, "It's easier to organize a nationwide campaign than to organize hundreds of local ones", but that makes it a matter of logistics not principle. Is that all there is to it?
Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?
I haven't heard any net neutrality advocates give a good argument for that yet. I could imagine "It's easier to have one standard than 50, for each state", but we don't seem to currently have too many disparate Net Neutrality laws that need to be unified. Or "Even unenlightened rural areas deserve open internet" - but that's not convincing if the big tech cities don't even have it yet.
I suppose there's, "It's easier to organize a nationwide campaign than to organize hundreds of local ones", but that makes it a matter of logistics not principle. Is that all there is to it?
Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?
> Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?
Not directly, but it would be problematic. The "channels" of interstate commerce are an area in which the Federal government has primacy. States can regulate them to some degree (e.g. prescribing speed limits on the portions of interstate highways passing through their jurisdiction). But they can't regulate them in a way that conflicts with how the federal government regulates them.
Not directly, but it would be problematic. The "channels" of interstate commerce are an area in which the Federal government has primacy. States can regulate them to some degree (e.g. prescribing speed limits on the portions of interstate highways passing through their jurisdiction). But they can't regulate them in a way that conflicts with how the federal government regulates them.
[deleted]
If we have learned literally nothing else over the past 20 years it is that incoming shame bounces off like 99.95% of these people
You may have been misled by the title. This is effective marketing to us, the constituents, not the lawmaker.
There was a big thread yesterday based on a survey that most people don't even know what net-neutrality is. This is a net neutrality billboard that anyone can understand.
There was a big thread yesterday based on a survey that most people don't even know what net-neutrality is. This is a net neutrality billboard that anyone can understand.
If net neutrality goes away, the burden of prosecuting anti-competitive behavior lies with the FTC.
God help us.
God help us.
It's interesting that NN opponents seem to have more long-lasting motivation than NN advocates, judging from top level comments here vs. a year or two ago.
That comes back to money. Billion dollar companies have people on salary pushing opposition directly, astroturfing editorials and think-tank pieces, etc. and one of the big things they've been pushing are alternate definitions of what network neutrality means.
A key part of this is the GOP's big shift towards ideological purity tests over the last 20 years. Party line messaging obedience is expected to a much higher degree now and since network neutrality was successfully politicized many people go along with the statements even though it's bad for them personally and violates the principles they believe in.
A key part of this is the GOP's big shift towards ideological purity tests over the last 20 years. Party line messaging obedience is expected to a much higher degree now and since network neutrality was successfully politicized many people go along with the statements even though it's bad for them personally and violates the principles they believe in.
While I agree that these people are idiots (especially Paul Ryan) I am starting to get a bad feeling about public shaming. It seems a very non-constructive way of political discourse.
That's eventually what you get when your elected representatives blindly adhere to party dogma instead of listening to their constituents and exercising a modicum of critical thinking.
I feel that with gerrymandering and all of the democracy anti-patterns that have been developed in the US, shaming is the only source left for an increasingly disempowered electorate.
Paul Ryan is an idiot, but so is every other member of Congress, on both sides of the fence.
Sorry, he is in the 1% of idiots. Even in Congress.
I don't recall stacking them up by percentage, ranking them from dumb to dumbest, or inferring any such ranking.
omg, that disclosure. I felt like I'm in high school math class again. :)
sizzzzlerz(1)
how is not having net neutrality different from google and co censoring the internet on whim.
Seems like the same set of people cheering google for censorship are afraid of censorship form ISPs.
Seems like the same set of people cheering google for censorship are afraid of censorship form ISPs.
If your message doesn't show up on one webpage, you can always publish it on another, or on a webpage of your own. If your ISP decides what webpages you are allowed to visit, that's basically it. If they don't want to let you contact any competing domain registrars, you won't be able to.
I suppose technically that'll never happen; you could fall back to a dial-up ISP. After all, the phone company is not allowed to decide that you can't call their competitors. One tiny part of the Title 2 regulations that cover telecommunications forces them to allow all telephone subscribers to call all other telephone subscribers. It's telephone neutrality. Look up the whole MCI thing from a few decades ago.
I suppose technically that'll never happen; you could fall back to a dial-up ISP. After all, the phone company is not allowed to decide that you can't call their competitors. One tiny part of the Title 2 regulations that cover telecommunications forces them to allow all telephone subscribers to call all other telephone subscribers. It's telephone neutrality. Look up the whole MCI thing from a few decades ago.
> If your message doesn't show up on one webpage, you can always publish it on another, or on a webpage of your own.
Can I just say this then,
If you can't access your website on ISP choose another ISP.
Whats different about this argument? Also, thank you for answering instead of downvoting.
Can I just say this then,
If you can't access your website on ISP choose another ISP.
Whats different about this argument? Also, thank you for answering instead of downvoting.
ISPs are natural monopolies [1]. In the US we're seeing increasing market share concentration by some pretty big juggernauts in the space (Comcast, Verizon). So what you're seeing is a lack of ISP choices for consumers and in many instances only 1 choice and that in my opinion is far more problematic than what Google and FB are doing. I'm not defending censorship by any party here really, but I definitely think censorship at the ISP level is a much bigger problem.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
I read that wikipedia page. I'd say I have more choice with ISPs than with search engines. Won't you say 'natural monopoly' applies to google too at this point?
The "top tier" has three options that are all basically equivalent in terms of quality:
google.com
bing.com
baidu.com
Other less popular but in many cases still excellent options include:
yandex.com
gigablast.com
lycos.com
askjeeves.com
duckduckgo.com
qwant.com
And the list goes on and on and on... these are just the "similar to google" search engines. There are also search engines for particular topics, search engines that take a different paradigm ("semantic search"), and with beer money you can even buy search engine+crawler software packages and build your own search engine for the portion of the web you care about.
And major sites like Wikipedia and Amazon and all the social sites have their own search features so you don't even need a third party search engine within most of the big silos.
If you're using google it's because either a) you want to use google; or b) you're monumentally lazy. Not because there aren't other options.
You can also write your own crawler and search engine. In fact, as literally all of these options demonstrate, with a surprisingly small amount of VC cash you could build your own "more than good enough" search engine. The same amount of cash probably wouldn't be nearly enough to build out a Verizon or Comcast competitor in even one city.
Conversely, I have exactly 3 options for ISPs in my area. One of them is the local equivalent of "build your own search engine" (and about similar quality). So actually 2 options -- Comcast and Verizon. There is no long tail of other providers, and what's more, there almost certainly never will be because acquiring the land rights would be enormously expensive. Oh and BTW I live in a major city; outside of cities you're even more screwed.
And even if we just limit ourselves to the "big best in class" search engines -- google, bing, baidu, duckduckgo -- that's still twice the number of options that most people have for ISP in the US.
google.com
bing.com
baidu.com
Other less popular but in many cases still excellent options include:
yandex.com
gigablast.com
lycos.com
askjeeves.com
duckduckgo.com
qwant.com
And the list goes on and on and on... these are just the "similar to google" search engines. There are also search engines for particular topics, search engines that take a different paradigm ("semantic search"), and with beer money you can even buy search engine+crawler software packages and build your own search engine for the portion of the web you care about.
And major sites like Wikipedia and Amazon and all the social sites have their own search features so you don't even need a third party search engine within most of the big silos.
If you're using google it's because either a) you want to use google; or b) you're monumentally lazy. Not because there aren't other options.
You can also write your own crawler and search engine. In fact, as literally all of these options demonstrate, with a surprisingly small amount of VC cash you could build your own "more than good enough" search engine. The same amount of cash probably wouldn't be nearly enough to build out a Verizon or Comcast competitor in even one city.
Conversely, I have exactly 3 options for ISPs in my area. One of them is the local equivalent of "build your own search engine" (and about similar quality). So actually 2 options -- Comcast and Verizon. There is no long tail of other providers, and what's more, there almost certainly never will be because acquiring the land rights would be enormously expensive. Oh and BTW I live in a major city; outside of cities you're even more screwed.
And even if we just limit ourselves to the "big best in class" search engines -- google, bing, baidu, duckduckgo -- that's still twice the number of options that most people have for ISP in the US.
It takes me all of 10 seconds to type duckduckgo.com, and maybe 30 to switch default search engines for the browser.
I don't think I could switch an ISP in 10 days, let alone seconds.
I don't think I could switch an ISP in 10 days, let alone seconds.
I can get 50-100++Mbps from Comcast, or 1Mbps (maybe) from CenturyLink, and then... no actually that's it. And 1Mbps would not let me do a lot of stuff online anymore.
So effectively I have no choice, unless I want to stop all video watching, downloading games regularly (not gonna soak 18 hours of 100% of my bandwidth to download a new title), etc.
So effectively I have no choice, unless I want to stop all video watching, downloading games regularly (not gonna soak 18 hours of 100% of my bandwidth to download a new title), etc.
> If you can't access your website on ISP choose another ISP.
There are thousands upon thousands of webpage hosts on the internet.
In many areas of the US, however, you may have only one option for ISP. You either take it, or you go without internet.
There are thousands upon thousands of webpage hosts on the internet.
In many areas of the US, however, you may have only one option for ISP. You either take it, or you go without internet.
How many ISPs can you choose from where you live ?
They have an effective monopoly or duopoly in many regions in the US.
in addition to that, "but what about google" is no defence for what last mile ISPs are doing. If google ever becomes too ubiquitous as a gatekeeper (it's already at that point according to the EU antitrust commission) they'll also need to be regulated.
in addition to that, "but what about google" is no defence for what last mile ISPs are doing. If google ever becomes too ubiquitous as a gatekeeper (it's already at that point according to the EU antitrust commission) they'll also need to be regulated.
I live in India.. I have about 10-15 options, but not sure if they are subcontracting from the same guy or what. I need to look into it.
>How many ISPs can you choose from where you live ?
Let me ask you this. How many search engines can you choose form, really? How many phone OS's can you choose from?
>How many ISPs can you choose from where you live ?
Let me ask you this. How many search engines can you choose form, really? How many phone OS's can you choose from?
Search engines? At least 5 that I've used. Google Bing ddg Baidu yandex. Cost of switching is like 10 seconds.
Phone OS? 3, one of which is literally open source and used by a bunch of other competitors. Cost of switching is about $150 and a day.
ISP in the US I have actually no choice. I'm crossing my fingers that CenturyLink or municipal fiber will become a thing, but I ain't optimistic about it. Cost of switching if there was a second one would be around $200+ for modem, installation fees, etc, and last time I did cus I moved it took like a week.
Phone OS? 3, one of which is literally open source and used by a bunch of other competitors. Cost of switching is about $150 and a day.
ISP in the US I have actually no choice. I'm crossing my fingers that CenturyLink or municipal fiber will become a thing, but I ain't optimistic about it. Cost of switching if there was a second one would be around $200+ for modem, installation fees, etc, and last time I did cus I moved it took like a week.
[deleted]
For many Americans(including me) there is only one ISP to "choose".
Doesn't America have anti monopoly laws? Curious why those don't apply to ISPs . Isn't this an admission that 'net neutrality ' is a bandaid to the problem of ISP monopoly.
Also, Philosophically you won't really care about net neutrality if you have ISP choice. correct?
Also, Philosophically you won't really care about net neutrality if you have ISP choice. correct?
If nobody wants to dig and lay cable to offer services to a small town what are you gonna do? The US had very low population density so the cost of teaching small communities can be huge.
It got this way because the companies that are dominant ISPs today were not always ISPs; they were cable TV companies. The cable companies were allowed to have regional monopolies where a city would allow one cable company to serve all the people in the city, but they didn't have to share their networks with each other. This wasn't so bad, because the cable companies don't really make TV shows; they buy TV shows from HBO or whoever. In principle, it wouldn't really matter that much which cable company you you paid, because they all would have more or less the same options. Since they only offered broadcast services they didn't qualify as telecommunications services either, so Title 2 doesn't apply (Title 1 does instead). But then the internet was invented, and now the cable companies deliver internet service over the same networks as they provide TV.
And they're still technically not monopolies, because even if they're the only place you can get 100MBps service, you might still be able to get 2Mbps service from the phone company (or dial-up service if you're more than a couple of miles from the POP), and internet service is internet service.
The phone companies also have regional monopolies, but because they have to share their network with everyone there are lots of options. I can buy my DSL from a dozen companies, but the circuit will be provisioned by AT&T. This means that none of these companies are likely to act in bad faith; their customers can switch easily, and the FCC is generally watching.
Having more options is indeed another way out; the cable companies have actually gotten a lot better in the last few years, if you're in a market where there are other choices. In some cities you can get Google Fiber, and cable there has suddenly started competing. In SF you can get Sonic.net's fiber service, etc.
And they're still technically not monopolies, because even if they're the only place you can get 100MBps service, you might still be able to get 2Mbps service from the phone company (or dial-up service if you're more than a couple of miles from the POP), and internet service is internet service.
The phone companies also have regional monopolies, but because they have to share their network with everyone there are lots of options. I can buy my DSL from a dozen companies, but the circuit will be provisioned by AT&T. This means that none of these companies are likely to act in bad faith; their customers can switch easily, and the FCC is generally watching.
Having more options is indeed another way out; the cable companies have actually gotten a lot better in the last few years, if you're in a market where there are other choices. In some cities you can get Google Fiber, and cable there has suddenly started competing. In SF you can get Sonic.net's fiber service, etc.
> Doesn't America have anti monopoly laws? Curious why those don't apply to ISPs . Isn't this an admission that 'net neutrality ' is a bandaid to the problem of ISP monopoly.
You are correct in that the root of this problem is that our anti-monopoly laws aren't being enacted here because there's too much money being made by those on top. We should fix that problem as well.
However, I'm not convinced that "just get a different ISP" would work in the US like it does elsewhere. Service companies here are very good at hiding details and the US generally ends up with a small handful of choices that are all terrible. See also: Phones, Healthcare, Transportation
You are correct in that the root of this problem is that our anti-monopoly laws aren't being enacted here because there's too much money being made by those on top. We should fix that problem as well.
However, I'm not convinced that "just get a different ISP" would work in the US like it does elsewhere. Service companies here are very good at hiding details and the US generally ends up with a small handful of choices that are all terrible. See also: Phones, Healthcare, Transportation
The vast majority of Americans do not have choice in ISP. Where I am, I have a choice between Cox and... well, Cox.
Net neutrality is vastly different; it's about filtering content in general and can be a good thing and a bad thing depending on a situation. E.g. when Russian government forces ISPs to block certain sites, it's obviously censorship, although it's achieved by filtering. But when a provider limits certain protocols (e.g. BitTorrent) over a narrow-band line, there may be sound technical reasons for this and the overall result may very well be to the advantage of the customers. Such filtering is commonplace in enterprises.
The recent case of GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare is much closer to political censorship; there's no technical reason behind it.
The recent case of GoDaddy, Google, and Cloudflare is much closer to political censorship; there's no technical reason behind it.
It's only censorship if you believe other entities are not also allowed freedom of speech and association.
"examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it."
that the definition I am using. What does it have to do with freedom of speech?
that the definition I am using. What does it have to do with freedom of speech?
Well, did GoDaddy and CloudFlare suppress the Daily Stormer? Or did they choose not to do business with them? I don't believe that they engaged in censorship, because they didn't prevent the Daily Stormer from being accessible. I believe that choosing not to do business with them was a form of speech, and that acting in the way they did was them expressing free speech. Thus, to me, in order to believe that what they did was censorship, that means that they should not be able to take that course of action, and that those companies were obligated to assist the Daily Stormer in getting its message out there.
>Well, did GoDaddy and CloudFlare suppress the Daily Stormer?
Yes they surpassed it on their platform. Censorship doesn't mean "make inaccessible to everyone on any platform". If you censor something on your own platform its still called censorship. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Indian govt censors kissing on movie screens but you can still go watch it on youtube. That doesn't mean what they are doing is not censorship, the govt entity that's responsible for it is actually called "censor board".
Yes they surpassed it on their platform. Censorship doesn't mean "make inaccessible to everyone on any platform". If you censor something on your own platform its still called censorship. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Indian govt censors kissing on movie screens but you can still go watch it on youtube. That doesn't mean what they are doing is not censorship, the govt entity that's responsible for it is actually called "censor board".
GoDaddy and CloudFlare are not government. The Indian Government is. That's a large difference.
And I still don't believe what they did was censorship. That was them exercising their right to free speech. I do not believe that it is possible for an expression of free speech to be censorship.
And I still don't believe what they did was censorship. That was them exercising their right to free speech. I do not believe that it is possible for an expression of free speech to be censorship.
>GoDaddy and CloudFlare are not government. The Indian Government is. That's a large difference.
I was just using that as an example. So according to you only govt can do censorship?
Thats a definition you made up, not the definition in dictionary. I quoted the dictionary definition from the dictionary and it perfectly matches what google did. Can you tell me how am wrong precisely?
I was just using that as an example. So according to you only govt can do censorship?
Thats a definition you made up, not the definition in dictionary. I quoted the dictionary definition from the dictionary and it perfectly matches what google did. Can you tell me how am wrong precisely?
I believe that only those who are obligated to assist or allow speech can do censorship. I don't believe that someone who has no obligation to aid or allow speech can. For example, if I throw away a flyer, that's not censorship.
u refuse to answer the question. "how did what google did not fit the definition of censorship in a dictionary" .
Definitions don't depend on one particular person's beliefs .
Definitions don't depend on one particular person's beliefs .
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Censorship is only when your view and others are not allowed freedom of speech?
I feel like I'm not parsing your sentence correctly.
I feel like I'm not parsing your sentence correctly.
I'm saying it's only censorship if you don't believe that other groups also have freedom of speech and association too. In order for the domain name thing or the CloudFlare thing to be censorship, you have to believe that none of those entities are able to practice freedom of association, or the right to choose who they do business with.
I disagree. I think doing business should be based on business reasons; if Daily Stormer upholds their end of the contract, then Google/GoDaddy/etc. have no ethical business reason to terminate it. If they disagree with what Daily Stormer says, they are totally free to publish their own statement. The only ethical consequence of free speech could be another speech.
And I believe that choosing not to do business is a form of speech.
Also, doing business with Nazis (and I'm not throwing that term around lightly; the Daily Stormer identifies themselves as such) is, especially given recent events, considered bad for business. So I would say they have a business reason there too.
Also, doing business with Nazis (and I'm not throwing that term around lightly; the Daily Stormer identifies themselves as such) is, especially given recent events, considered bad for business. So I would say they have a business reason there too.
There indeed is such a reason, but it's unethical. It is basically being afraid that the mob will turn against you and thus hurt your business. Somehow nobody blames the mob.
Doing business is a way of living in the modern society. Stopping doing business (including firing an employee over non-business reasons, a very popular measure in liberal circles) threatens your well-being and even life. If everyone stops doing business with a person, the person is very likely to die. This is very close to lynching and is a total opposite of justice.
Doing business is a way of living in the modern society. Stopping doing business (including firing an employee over non-business reasons, a very popular measure in liberal circles) threatens your well-being and even life. If everyone stops doing business with a person, the person is very likely to die. This is very close to lynching and is a total opposite of justice.
I completely disagree. I especially disagree that it's anywhere close to lynching, which is a terrible, terrible analogy for you to choose given that the subject at hand is Nazis and White Supremacists.
I disagree that choosing not to do business with the Daily Stormer is unethical. It's no worse than any other reason to not choose to do business with someone, of which GoDaddy does chose not to do business with several other entities.
I disagree that GoDaddy not doing business with the Daily Stormer threatened anyone's well being or life. If anything, not amplifying their signal has likely saved lives, because hopefully fewer people will know that the site exists, and will then become radicalized because of it.
I disagree that choosing not to do business with the Daily Stormer is unethical. It's no worse than any other reason to not choose to do business with someone, of which GoDaddy does chose not to do business with several other entities.
I disagree that GoDaddy not doing business with the Daily Stormer threatened anyone's well being or life. If anything, not amplifying their signal has likely saved lives, because hopefully fewer people will know that the site exists, and will then become radicalized because of it.
Have you read that piece?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...
It's about a woman with that tweet about white and AIDS and how the mob response to it ruined her life. The punishment turned out to be completely out of proportion with the crime. Punishments carried out by mobs tend to. Imagine that she were tried by a court for her tweet, given a defender and all the due process; do you think the court would order her to be punished to that extent? So yes, this is very close to lynching; it's social lynching done by well-educated progressive people who think they're humane and are doing the right thing. Projected to its logical conclusion it's meant to deprive the victims of their lives.
Actually, much more people became aware of Daily Stormer; I, for one, I've never heard of them before. I wish I could see what it was about, I prefer to trust my own judgement in such matters, but I cannot. All I can see is a small excerpt in a search engine: "We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, ..." Well, that's all; the information is not available. But it's ironic, isn't it? I'd say this credo is an opposite of that of their antifa opponents who claim it's good to use violence against Nazis and boldly declare that at the pages of New Your Times and whatnot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...
It's about a woman with that tweet about white and AIDS and how the mob response to it ruined her life. The punishment turned out to be completely out of proportion with the crime. Punishments carried out by mobs tend to. Imagine that she were tried by a court for her tweet, given a defender and all the due process; do you think the court would order her to be punished to that extent? So yes, this is very close to lynching; it's social lynching done by well-educated progressive people who think they're humane and are doing the right thing. Projected to its logical conclusion it's meant to deprive the victims of their lives.
Actually, much more people became aware of Daily Stormer; I, for one, I've never heard of them before. I wish I could see what it was about, I prefer to trust my own judgement in such matters, but I cannot. All I can see is a small excerpt in a search engine: "We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, ..." Well, that's all; the information is not available. But it's ironic, isn't it? I'd say this credo is an opposite of that of their antifa opponents who claim it's good to use violence against Nazis and boldly declare that at the pages of New Your Times and whatnot.
In regards to censorship, I agree with you. It seems that if your primary opposition to net neutrality is censorship, then you should be equally opposed to Google censoring anything.
But in terms of technical effort and economics, these are not the same. It's much easier to write html and find someone to host it for you than it is to trench in municipalities and lay fiber across the country. Net neutrality restricts ISPs from having a competitive advantage in the content space.
But in terms of technical effort and economics, these are not the same. It's much easier to write html and find someone to host it for you than it is to trench in municipalities and lay fiber across the country. Net neutrality restricts ISPs from having a competitive advantage in the content space.
To me it's less about censorship than companies offering services over there internet having to pay tolls to ISPs. This will only make it easier for incumbent companies to defend the market against competitors will can't afford the tolls and thus can't reach their customers.
Net Neutrality isn't about censorship. It's about the distribution of power and hence profit in the emerging new order for communications, media and entertainment distribution. ISPs want to maintain their current cable tv business model where they get to charge the customer for their connection, and also charge the content provider for carrying their content to said user. That business model is contrary to the historical Internet Service model where the customer pays a fee that's supposed to cover the cost of all the traffic they transit regardless of where it originated.
The difference is one of degree (...perhaps "layer" is a better word?), not of kind. There probably is a principled way to draw a line between the two situations, but I haven't seen it. Many people are distracted by the greater empathy they feel for Google than for Comcast.
In my mind there is actually no contradiction here. Net neutrality is undeniably a way for the federal government to pressure ISPs when their opinions differ. Such as on information requests and wiretapping.
Yes they're slightly close. But those sites can much more easily put up their own webserver than run their own network
to each customer.
I feel like net neutrality should be fought for at almost all cost. Marsha Blackburn doesn't care what her constituents believe...she got payed and her district is mostly safe.