by "Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
Published 11/22/2017 at 13:51
by "Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
Published 11/22/2017 at 13:51
No Tags
STARS: 11
Hi all, this is a political post talking about Net Neutrality started by your friendly neighborhood moderator Gamecat. If you don’t want to talk about this subject here, please go on to the next post in the list.
I would like to know if there are any members of Oppo who can explain, from the perspective of a non-corporate entity, why Net Neutrality should be eliminated.
I am not looking to start a fight, argument, or intense debate with regard to this. I am legitimately wondering if someone can explain to me, who currently pays a lot of money, and is happy doing so, to be able to access the internet, at home, and through my wireless devices, to stream my collection of music, directly from my server at home, to my devices, wherever I am. The protocols necessary to do this require that I have open, unfettered access to a series of not-so-easily categorized set of bandwidth.
In other words, if internet traffic is categorized, my usage will directly be affected. So yes, this directly has the ability to impact my usage and life.
I have paid for internet access for more than 20 years. And was on BBS’s before that. So I am not new to this, or scared of the technical details. I set up my own server. I manage it. I manually patched bash and shell when my OS didn’t get an update (I’ve since updated everything to a more secure approach, but won’t elaborate about that).
So, political and tech-minded oppo commentariat, can any of you explain how the elimination of Net Neutrality could even begin to start to benefit me?
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 13:56, STARS: 0
I’m fine with it as long as they open up competition similar to how Texas does electricity.
"TorqueToYield" (torquetoyield)
11/22/2017 at 13:57, STARS: 5
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t believe in the following, but some people (who may have read too much Ayn Rand) do:
>Free markets are more efficient.
>By letting the market decide rates for web traffic the internet will magically become “more efficient”.
And now I need a shower.
"not for canada - australian in disguise" (for-canada)
11/22/2017 at 13:57, STARS: 7
I’m all for the repeal. It means less Americans on the internet to ruin it for everybody else.
I’m being sarcastic by the way, just in case you’re American or German and can’t understand sarcasm.
"Spoon II" (Spoon_II)
11/22/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 9
I have the exact same question. I’d wager that the only support is from corporate lobbying groups, which is therefore terrible for everybody.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 13:59, STARS: 12
Randian policies terrify me. The notion of self-policing being the best policy is a notion of pure anarchy (by literal definition). And trust me when I say that no one wants anarchy. Especially in this theater.
"fintail" (fintail)
11/22/2017 at 14:03, STARS: 6
Anyone who leans on Ayn Rand to support their views is suspect at best, and usually worse.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 0
Would you be able to explain what Texas has done for their electric utility access? or point me to a resource that explains it in one place? I’m truly interested.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
11/22/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 2
I support net neutrality, but here are the arguments I’ve heard against it:
Some packets are more time-critical than others, and should have priority. For example, video chat traffic, which needs low latency, should be prioritized over streaming video, which only needs enough speed to play without buffering.
Net-neutrality needs enforcement, which means having someone from the government monitoring traffic, making sure everyone is equal. Anyone hoping to open a small network, like a municipal network, needs to pay for that enforcement.
Utilities are almost by definition monopolies. Making the internet a utility means making internet monopolies.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
11/22/2017 at 14:05, STARS: 4
But Canadians are already hit their monthly cap.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
11/22/2017 at 14:06, STARS: 7
i Haven’t read too much on the changes, since it is under the Trump admin I can only assume it is sponsored by corporate greed. There is so much bad shit going on right now in our government that I can’t even keep track of it.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:06, STARS: 0
I’m not sure I would go that far, I believe that there are probably uses for these approaches, but I don’t think that the grand American experiment is the place to test them.
"Galileo Humpkins (aka MC Clap Yo Handz)" (galileo-humpkins)
11/22/2017 at 14:07, STARS: 3
Pretty much. I’d be willing to guess, though, that there are those people out there who believe anything their conservative leaders say without fact checking. So there’s them too - but reality is that every politician over the last 125 years or so, has been in some lobby/corporate pocket so really it’s safe to say they have run our country for ages and this is no different.
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 14:10, STARS: 1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation_of_the_Texas_electricity_market
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 4
There are already prioritization protocols in place for certain types of traffic, and policies which exist for their usage. And for truly critical infrastructure, there exists separate, non-internet based, networking solutions.
Enforcement of policies always entails actual enforcement. But the 1A lawsuits which will arise out of ISP’s censoring or denying access to content will destroy our country if they go through our current neo-luddite administration and adjudication system. As such, I would rather have these policies handled by a regulatory agency that specializes in the type of technology and dissemination that is at play.
It’s too late, there are already internet monopolies.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
11/22/2017 at 14:12, STARS: 2
I agree, but the above arguments are what I’ve heard.
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 1
Essentially it keeps the provider in charge of infrastructure, but allows other companies to purchase bandwidth and resell to consumers. Consumers can then choose whichever plan they want. The bandwidth providers would have financial incentive to provide an open internet.
"fintail" (fintail)
11/22/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 3
I can’t think of many real world situations where’d I’d give her scribbling much cred. Fintail shrugged at the thought of her insight :)
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
11/22/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 2
Well yeah, they’re all in line for days at a time waiting on their free healthcare, they’ve nothing better to do than stare at their mobiles.
(Unadulterated sarcasm, I’m a single payer supporter)
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 0
To summarize, to see if I understand, the energy marketplace was deregulated, with an emphasis placed on cost per energy unit consumed and required infrastructure, and a non-profit agency was established which oversees the distribution and application of policies and requirements, and which acts as a central hub and manager of assets, and in doing so, a successful free market approach was established.
Is that a fair summary, or did I miss or WAY oversimplify anything?
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 0
Me too. And I thank you for the input. I just keep banging my head against this wall, and I can’t seem to understand the approach from the perspective of a common / uncommon citizen.
"SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman" (dasborgen)
11/22/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 2
I’ve wondered the same. I have no opinion on the matter since I don’t fully understand it (not many citizens are so candid, sadly)
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:19, STARS: 1
In honesty, me too. I just tend to abhor blanket statements. =)
"TorqueToYield" (torquetoyield)
11/22/2017 at 14:23, STARS: 3
I’m resigned to NN being repealed, I think they’ll just force it through.
But if it significantly changes most people’s user experience for say, Netflix, or Facebook, or whatever, I think there’ll be significant public backlash and a whole lot of pressure to get congress to fix it with laws.
People are too used to what we have now. It’s not 1995 anymore, there are hundreds of millions of facebook and netflix users in the US. If they get a popup “you’re free facebook views have expired pay 10c per view or upgrade your package” BS they will not be happy.
There’s been more than one example of greedy tech companies greeding themselves out of business.
"StndIbnz, Drives a MSRT8" (stndibnz1)
11/22/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 4
Just wrote to my representatives last night saying I’m in favor and not to change it, for what it’s worth. Seeing how the FCC has completely not given a fuck about how many complains over this they’ve had, I’m not sure it will do anything.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
11/22/2017 at 14:24, STARS: 0
Those wait times are no joke
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/wait-times-cihi-commonwealth-1.3984920
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:27, STARS: 1
Yeah, the notion of “representative republic” or “representative based democracy” seems to have been forgotten. I worry about what this ultimately means, but don’t want to turn this into a President Trump / GOP / DEM bashing argument.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
11/22/2017 at 14:31, STARS: 2
I’ve been thinking about this lately. The best I can come up with is that if you build the toll road you can charge people how and what you want to use it. Don’t like it? Try Road B. Not sure if its an apt analogy or not. Im pro net neutrality, FYI. I also realize that many consumers DON’T currently have a choice in providers.
on a semi related note, I just found out last night that mortgage terms and service are different things. i.e. your terms are locked into a contract but your service provider is always open and it can change hands or be sold at any time for any reason. You could have a great service provider one day and a crap one the other and there is literally nothing you can do about it.
Makes me wonder how related these things are.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:33, STARS: 0
Right, I see this in the same light. And that really worries me, given my usage format (not in any direct simple category, would likely end up in whatever tier has “unlimited access to all content and data types”).
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 14:33, STARS: 0
Pretty much, it worked well for us.
Regarding the price to beat “New market entrants could charge a price below the price to beat, but incumbents could not. This period was to last from 2002 to January 1, 2007. As of 2007 Texas investor owned utility affiliates no longer have price to beat tariffs.”
"MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s" (mastermario)
11/22/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 1
Isn’t this how much of Europe operates with regard to the internet already?
"Future next gen S2000 owner" (future-next-gen-s2000-owner)
11/22/2017 at 14:34, STARS: 4
There are no good arguments as to why net neutrality should be eliminated, except for those sweet, sweet profits.
"404 - User No Longer Available" (toni-cipriani)
11/22/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 7
I feel the argument used for Net Neutrality is heading the wrong direction. Everyone talks about how websites and services will be packaged like cable, but the REAL issue in my opinion is the fact that carriers can have their hand at your data. It’s like saying the post office can open your mail and decide what to do with it.
The key issue here is censorship, not commercialization.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:36, STARS: 3
Thank you. That’s actually pretty neat, I’m not opposed to structured deregulation with mileposts and guidelines. But what is being proposed is “first tear down the fences, and then we’ll figure out the details” which scares the crap out of me. We need to plan for this, not just open the gates.
"bhtooefr" (bhtooefr)
11/22/2017 at 14:38, STARS: 1
That sounds like what British Telecom does in the UK, AFAIK.
I’m very OK with decoupling the last mile from the pipe provider, and actually think it’d be preferable.
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 14:39, STARS: 1
Yeah I hope during the inevitable pushback, we’ll have a solution like this.
"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
11/22/2017 at 14:41, STARS: 2
On the one hand, yeah its a lot of money to build infrastructure to support a service like this, and heavy users should be charged more. On the other hand putting the decision of what type of traffic is prioritized into the hands of business WILL (not might) shape the very fabric of way we use the internet to learn and do commerce. Thats a lot of power to wield. Like building a freeway right past a small town without an offramp, you have made a CHOICE to kill that town.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:47, STARS: 0
Sure, but all I use is bandwidth, and it’s not even heavy bandwidth usage, it’s just lightweight, semi-constant when in use, bandwidth. And I might end up at the price gouging end of the price spectrum.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 14:50, STARS: 1
As I mentioned to For Sweden here:
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/1820686977
, this is very very very much a concern to me as well.
In short, a portion of my concerns are:
...the 1A lawsuits which will arise out of ISP’s censoring or denying access to content will destroy our country if they go through our current neo-luddite administration and adjudication system. As such, I would rather have these policies handled by a regulatory agency that specializes in the type of technology and dissemination that is at play.
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 15:01, STARS: 0
I’m ignorant to how the UK and Europe operate that market.
"dsigned001 - O.R.C. hunter" (dsigned001)
11/22/2017 at 15:17, STARS: 1
To be clear, I support NN, and I disagree with many of the points listed in the link I’m posting. But it’s the best I’ve seen so far.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
11/22/2017 at 15:23, STARS: 0
They did this in Montana and it resulted in a financial disaster for Montana Power employees.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Power_Company
"gettingoldercarguy" (gettingoldercarguy)
11/22/2017 at 15:30, STARS: 0
Is it equivalent? It looks like they did a lot of infrastructure investment, couldn’t support it and crashed.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 15:57, STARS: 1
That’s a healthy argument. I don’t agree with all of the points, but it’s a more rounded argument than I’ve seen elsewhere. It’s too naive for me, and leaves more unanswered questions, but it is at least an opening the door to why the current status quo might need adjusting.
"John Norris (AngryDrifter)" (angrydrifter)
11/22/2017 at 21:55, STARS: 1
Thanks for posting this. There is so much rabid pro net neutrality verbiage out there it’s nice to happen upon some other viewpoints. With my conservative political leaning I automatically tend towards getting the federal government out of everything we can and I believe the world would be a better place. Net neutrality just sounds like another opportunity to turn the internet that has some negative consequences into a stifled, slower improving system as government imposed ‘fairness’ takes priority over free market trial and error.
The net neutrality fear seems to be fear of monopolization type tactics. The government has the power to take down abusive monopolies. And in this case they could do that if the market didn’t sort it out. But in many cases the market sorts things out better than the government, particularly where technology gains are rapid.
In the 1970's and ‘80's IBM had a monopoly position in a number of areas of computer hardware and software and the government stepped in a few times to smack them down. IBM is such a small player now and I don’t believe it’s a result of those smack downs, it’s because the free market invented other computer hardware and software products. IBM had a monopoly on market position for its product lines, but not of development of other computer hardware and software product lines that came along. The free market ran off without them on a number of areas. They should have spent more effort chasing where the technology was allowing things to go rather than getting more dollars out of their existing products. But that’s hard to justify when the company is rolling in the dough with the current product lines. In the end free market use of technology changed their market position not government control.
The government split up the Bell System for telephone land lines which was the sole telephone provider for the US up until 1980 or so. That generated some competition and moved the telephone forward which had plateaued in the 60's and 70's. If there was a land line monopoly today I think people would not care. The regional land line monopolies can’t keep up with the cell phone progress in the neighboring market. Free market use of technology advancements usurped telephone land line monopolies far more than government controls did.
Based on my observation of free markets and government controls, I say keep the government out of it as much as you can and let the market reward the geniuses that improve things and punish the failed ideas and failed product executions that come along. There will be some bumps in the road but better we live with the bumps than stifle the pace of market development.
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
11/22/2017 at 22:53, STARS: 1
This doesn’t answer your question, and you’ve probably seen it before, but one of my favorite analogies comes from cartoonist Steve Sack :
(I’m not sure how far the analogy carries, though. On the road, we accomplish traffic prioritization by giving emergency vehicles flashing lights and allowing them to use the shoulder or turn lanes to pass. But that’s only for emergencies, not for taxi/Uber drivers or any other form of commercial transport. They have to follow the same rules and be subject to the same traffic jams as the rest of us...)
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 23:23, STARS: 1
In my lifetime I’ve benefited and suffered from monopolies and deregulation. And I don’t necessarily see it as just government interference is bad, and free markets are great, but I don’t see the inverse either. And I think that the best paths, especially for a marketplace where literally everyone needs to be, that some amount of control and regulation is necessary. And I haven’t seen any of the arguments coming from the pro-dereg side that outline what that means for the learned consumer. Only the “regulations are bad” arguments. Seem to generally make it out, and I want to believe that the arguments are not actually so simple, because time and experience tells us that corporate entities act first in their own best interests.
And allowing a totally open marketplace actually tends to encourage monopolistic practices (regional agreements, pass through benefits, shared costs, official or back channel arrangements, etc) in many environments, especially something as complex as dynamic internet routing, service and infrastructure.
The internet, at this point, is a basic human right. It is the neural network within which our collective consciousness is stored. And I am terrified that in a totally deregulated state, that people will control access points, costs, and potentially types of bandwidth.
And if bumps in the road mean that people end up victims of censorship, lose access to portions of the internet, or are denied freedoms to areas because the providers in their area are all acting “in the best interests of our customers”. Then I’m opposed to the notion of trusting the market.
I’ve worked for major multi-billion dollar corporate entities, in many roles, all of them within management to some degree, I know what their goals are at the highest decision making levels, and they are all financial, not altruistic, not looking to reinvest, but finding the best balance of spending to investment to income to maximize profit in ranges anywhere from 1 month to 10 years out.
But I similarly do not necessarily believe that the status quo is just the perfect answer either. I’ve been dreaming of fiber ever since I’ve heard of it. But looking at what happened with Google and others, it’s a proposition that requires either major upfront investment, or public funding. And that’s definitely the realm of some government involvement, as there are two many swindles out there. I want to have some larger guarantees, as a consumer. Not retroactive application of 1 and a half months of fees returned to me after being overcharged and underserviced for years by a company that I couldn’t choose an alternate too.
As you hopefully can see, I’m not a complete liberal who believes that everything should be handed to me, and nor am I someone who thinks that everything needs to be regulated, but I think the best answers lie somewhere in the middle, and where in that middle is the biggest question.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/22/2017 at 23:30, STARS: 0
Also, thank you for sharing your views and explaining them so clearly. It is equally refreshing from my perspective to see this level of discussion without a need to resort to name calling or side taking beyond “here is what I’ve believed and here’s why I still believe so”. I think that this level of communication is necessary, but has become harder and harder as we nest ourselves into (primarily) echo chambers.
"pip bip - choose Corrour" (hhgttg69)
11/23/2017 at 05:21, STARS: 1
being here in Australia, i haven’t paid attention to it
it worries me that Youtube might be restricted somewhat.
"John Norris (AngryDrifter)" (angrydrifter)
11/23/2017 at 11:59, STARS: 1
So it’s always healthy to write about your thoughts and try and communicate them to someone else. It forces you to clarify them and it also forces you to self critique them more than you otherwise would. So thanks for the compliment and thanks again for providing the opportunity with the way you posed the post.
With respect to self critique, after I wrote my response above I was forced to reflect in total what I said. I came to the following two conclusions.
1. My worst case scenario going in is the government will over regulate the internet and far fewer good ideas for improvement of the internet will be developed as a result. Given my view and explanation of 70's 80's monopolies would translate to an over regulated 2020's internet, technology would likely find a way around it eventually. Through profit motive of companies wanting to make money if they had good ideas, they would find a way to implement them outside the over-regulated internet. So maybe I shouldn’t care so much about the opportunity for over regulation through net neutrality.
2. Conversely, given the worst case scenario of the pro net-neutrality camp, if the internet gets controlled by just a few and they monopolize themselves into charging whatever they want, to the distaste of private and commercial users, other options will be developed by other companies. I am sure the technical evolution of the internet will continue, and as I discussed above monopolies tend to focus on self preservation, not chasing the next big thing. Hence the next big thing for the internet would be likely to run past them.
So in the end my opinion has changed. I guess I don’t care too much which way it goes. Either way we are likely to have bureaucratic or monopoly bumps in the road and either way technology and innovation are very likely to win the day. As I result I am now neutral on net-neutrality.
"crown victor victoria" (cvv)
11/23/2017 at 14:35, STARS: 1
I think the main benefit, and I say this as a NN supporter, is that it MIGHT allow for the development of actual competition in terms of how these services are provided.
However, on seeing that part of the changes prevent individual states from writing their own NN laws I have little reason to believe that this is anything other than a huge gift to the ISPs and cable companies. This argument that we need less regulation in this arena suggests that corporate entities have proven themselves trustworthy and capable of stewarding a service like this without taking advantage of the customers. I already feel like I pay more than I should for what I actually get for my broadband, and I am skeptical that Comcast or anybody else is going to make things better for me, not tell me what online services I can or cannot use, not increase my rates or otherwise put restrictions on customers to serve their own financial interests.
As I said above, I hope that this supposed governmental light touch will allow for new service providers to come into the market, or for municipal fiber networks to flourish, or for new technologies to come to market to give us true options besides the one cable operator available in your area and a few junky DSL providers.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
11/23/2017 at 18:31, STARS: 1
Interestingly, I drifted a bit more to the center as well. I’m still more pro-regulation, but I’ll be honest, I could very much get behind some open, transparent, and innovation centric deregulation.
In fact, I think the middle ground might be the only way to actually preserve what the average person believes the status quo is or should be (open internet where people make back what ROI they put into it).
I truly enjoy the nature of a good debate, and I tired of my friends on both sides taking absolute stances. (I’m pretty tired of this in many ways). So, I appreciated the open sharing of the thoughts behind the ideas in a way that I think you seem to really enjoy as well. Thank you.