Net neutrality non-neutrality
-
@antiquarian It seems to me the only options are:
- Do nothing and let monopolistic ISPs be as abusive as they want. This is a horrible idea.
- Fix the problem by imposing net neutrality regulations, bringing the monopolists to heel.
- Fix the problem by imposing strong competition. Ideally, this would be the best solution, but as I mentioned above, this will require breaking ISPs' control over physical infrastructure, and if you think they're putting up a fight over net neutrality, just wait until the rhetoric about "government stealing our property!!!!!" starts flying. This solution is unfortunately too politically infeasible to take seriously at the moment.
Those are the only options I'm really aware of, and of them, imposing net neutrality regulations is the best one available. Are you aware of other (realistic) options?
-
@masonwheeler I think there's some space between "Wild wild west" and Title II, so your list of options is not complete.
More importantly, we have at least two problems. Net neutrality solves the problem of deciding who will pay for new services that require more resources than were planned for, but it doesn't solve the problem that monopolistic ISPs are abusive. And, as I said before, putting this into place will have people thinking that everything is fine now, so that problem will never get solved.
-
In Poland, there used to be 3 mobile networks - Era, Plus and Orange. The prices stabilized at about 1zł ($0.30)/min, charged per second, with about 100min/month free within a network. Then in 2007 a 4th network, Play, was created. It offered unlimited free calls within network and dirt cheap internet (for the time). They also had better coverage than any other network. This caused other networks to drastically lower prices as well. But this was only possible thanks to the Polish counterpart of FCC forcing the 3 old networks to let Play use their infrastructure free of charge for IIRC 5 years.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
imposing net neutrality regulations is the best one available
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I think there's some space between "Wild wild west" and Title II
This is the disconnect whenever you try to discuss Net Neutrality with members of that religion. They either don't realize, don't know, or refuse to acknowledge that what the Wheeler FCC did in 2015 was not imposing Net Neutrality regulations. The 2015 Open Internet Order was the FCC declaring "we find that we have the right to impose all the common carrier and other telephone company regulations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 on ISPs, but we're going to choose not to apply most of them at this time".
Though, the reason the Wheeler FCC did that was because they'd already lost two court cases for trying to impose regulations on ISPs including some Net Neutrality related things, since Congress declared ISPs as being Title I services (per the 1934 act) in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. So the FCC's 2015 order was trying to supersede that as a precursor to being able to apply Net Neutrality and other regulations on ISPs. Of course, even without Pai's workings to reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order, it's still an open question whether or not it will stand up in court; most legal experts at the time expected it wouldn't survive a court challenge, since the cases that invalidated the 2010 Open Internet Order and other similar regulations were decided by wide margins all the way through the appeals process.
-
@gąska said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But this was only possible thanks to the Polish counterpart of FCC forcing the 3 old networks to let Play use their infrastructure free of charge for IIRC 5 years.
Emphasis added.
So, basically, government allowed a company to steal other people's property, and they used that theft to "out compete" the other companies, which forced lower prices since the other companies had to choose between paying for the equipment and getting nothing at all, or selling their service at a loss but at least getting something for it.
Quite the bold solution to evil corporations, I suppose.
-
@izzion So there was even more oversimplification going on than I thought, and apparently some of it from people who were in a position to know better.
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I think there's some space between "Wild wild west" and Title II, so your list of options is not complete.
And Title II has its own wild west problem WRT rule of law (EDIT: see @izzion's post above about the FCC getting its hands slapped in the past). But he also has a really warped sense of what competition there actually is. For instance, while landline broadband doesn't see much, there is a ton of competition in the mobile space, so why would you want to lump both of those into the same regulations? Retarded.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Those are the only options I'm really aware of,
You are notoriously unimaginative outside of your soda straw views of the world, though.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So, basically, government allowed a company to steal other people's property, and they used that theft to "out compete" the other companies, which forced lower prices since the other companies had to choose between paying for the equipment and getting nothing at all, or selling their service at a loss but at least getting something for it.
Yes, basically that. The end result is more competition, and as of 2017, unlimited domestic calls, semi-unlimited data (10GB is enough for most people) and all four networks prospering.
-
@gąska
On the other hand, you have the US which had fairly poor competition and mobile plan choices in 2007, and as technology has advanced to 2017, we now have 4 carriers that cover 90%+ of the population, a plethora of competitive options and plans ranging from a hard cap (pay more if you want data over your cap) to a fairly rigid soft cap (throttled to 128Kbps all the time after your cap) to unlimited but soft capped after a certain point during congestion (throttled to 128Kbps unless you're one of the only users after the unlimited soft cap), and a lot of price competition.No government mandated theft required, just technological advancement to resolve the bandwidth bottlenecks that existed in the early days (and, possibly, government interference to prevent mergers that would have killed competition, but I personally don't subscribe to the view that said interference was necessary or automatically beneficial).
-
@izzion I believe there's some interventionist shenanigans going on with virtual operators?
-
@gąska
TBH, I'm not sure of what the history of MVNOs is in the US, and my 5 minute Google search didn't give me any smoking guns of knowledge. Though this post seems to suggest that the MVNO boom was more free market driven then regulations driven.I know from some experience in the DSL resale world that there's an element of the big carriers knowing their customer support sucks (or has a reputation of sucking), so by allowing MVNOs, they out-source the customer support problem and basically become an infrastructure management company instead. And the other carriers are then business partners rather than competitors. Of course, that doesn't really solve their underlying problem, in that their customer service still sucks, so when the customer has a problem due to bad physical plant, they still can't get it fixed. But hey, at least the customer is pissed at the MVNO now instead of the underlying carrier, no more bad PR on reddit \o/
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@antiquarian Yes, I'm quite familiar with the "politician's syllogism." This is not the case here.
Before the concept of "net neutrality" existed as a thing to be affirmatively protected, it existed as the natural, normal, obvious way in which networks were run. When certain ISPs began to see ways to extract wealth from the Internet by abusing their customers, people started saying, "Hey, that's not how it works!" and the debate over net neutrality began.
I find it funny that we live in a world where most people want net neutrality but want progressive tax brackets.
Someone made a comparison to a toll road. "Should FedEx pay more for the toll than everyone else?" To which I replied, "Can other people get on the road? If not, then maybe they should."
That said, I don't believe wealth is a limited resource like a road, but the internet absolutely is.
-
-
@sockpuppet7
FTFA (emphasis mine):displayed the mobile internet service offerings from the Portuguese telecommunications company MEO.
allowing an additional 10GB data allotment for the apps within the options
So, it's allowing you to get a discounted rate for increasing your data plan on certain services (presumably because that service paid to allow you to get that discounted rate, meaning you paid that service to get you that discounted rate).
Doesn't discriminate against new providers, you can still access their service via your normal data bucket (and presumably pay them less, since they're not paying your data carrier to give you a discounted rate data bucket), and I don't see any reference in there that your normal data bucket is 0 GB or cannot be expanded per the "normal" ways we had here in the US back in the dark ages Pai is proposing to return us to.
Similarly the Vodaphone plan that the article calls out (again, emphasis mine):
In Britain, the internet service provider Vodaphone charges about $33 a month for basic service but offers several “passes” allowing unlimited video or music streaming, social media usage, or chat, at additional tariffs of up to $9.30 per month.
So, these plans are about usage based billing -- having the heavy users pay what their traffic actually costs, rather than making light users subsidize the heavy users because everyone's on "unlimited" data.
Tell me again, is "Net Neutrality" really not about the heavy users demanding the rights to keep stealing from the light users via forced subsidies?
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler I think there's some space between "Wild wild west" and Title II, so your list of options is not complete.
Hand-waving is not evidence of the existence of other options.
More importantly, we have at least two problems. Net neutrality solves the problem of deciding who will pay for new services that require more resources than were planned for, but it doesn't solve the problem that monopolistic ISPs are abusive.
You sure? ISTM smacking down abusive ISPs gives them a good incentive to resolve the problem of being abusive.
And, as I said before, putting this into place will have people thinking that everything is fine now, so that problem will never get solved.
Oh, come on. Does anything in politics work that way? The people pushing for net neutrality are well aware that it's not the ideal solution, but it's a good first step.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
everyone's on "unlimited" data
Are they?
I don't stream on cellular connections so I use relatively little data. I pay for 1GB a month
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
So, basically the government can't even manage to review based on 2015 laws. That's about right.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Let's not pretend that mobile services don't have data caps.
-
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
This is the disconnect whenever you try to discuss Net Neutrality with members of that religion. They either don't realize, don't know, or refuse to acknowledge that what the Wheeler FCC did in 2015 was not imposing Net Neutrality regulations. The 2015 Open Internet Order was the FCC declaring "we find that we have the right to impose all the common carrier and other telephone company regulations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 on ISPs, but we're going to choose not to apply most of them at this time".
Though, the reason the Wheeler FCC did that was because they'd already lost two court cases for trying to impose regulations on ISPs including some Net Neutrality related things, since Congress declared ISPs as being Title I services (per the 1934 act) in the Communications Decency Act of 1996. So the FCC's 2015 order was trying to supersede that as a precursor to being able to apply Net Neutrality and other regulations on ISPs. Of course, even without Pai's workings to reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order, it's still an open question whether or not it will stand up in court; most legal experts at the time expected it wouldn't survive a court challenge, since the cases that invalidated the 2010 Open Internet Order and other similar regulations were decided by wide margins all the way through the appeals process.
wat
I'm sorry, but that is simply the most bizarre misinterpretation of what went on in those cases that I have ever heard.
The reason the Wheeler FCC chose Title II with forbearance is because most of the provisions of Title II, which as you note came from a 1934 act that predates the Internet by a wide margin, were either not applicable or not particularly relevant. They weren't "timid" about the previous court cases; they were essentially following the clear directions laid out by their losses in the previous cases, in which the court all but explicitly said "you do have the power to impose open internet regulations, but only if you reclassify ISPs as Title II." So that's what they did.
Here, have a listen to a guy who's been following the subject since the very beginning discussing it with Dane Jasper, the CEO of Sonic, a California ISP, who was actually there and actively involved throughout the entire process:
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Hand-waving is not evidence of the existence of other options.
Really? You're questioning the existence of other options when we clearly have one: put everything back to the way it was in 2014.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
ISTM smacking down abusive ISPs gives them a good incentive to resolve the problem of being abusive.
You would think that, but banks are even more regulated than ISPs are, and smackdowns generally lead to them finding other ways to be abusive.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Does anything in politics work that way?
Healthcare does. AHCA was a band-aid at best.
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
The people pushing for net neutrality are well aware that it's not the ideal solution
Maybe some of them are, but they aren't the people losing their shit about it on reddit.
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Really? You're questioning the existence of other options when we clearly have one: put everything back to the way it was in 2014.How is that not covered in the options I presented?
You would think that, but banks are even more regulated than ISPs are, and smackdowns generally lead to them finding other ways to be abusive.
Oy, don't even get me started on banks. They're a whole other matter entirely.
Healthcare does. AHCA was a band-aid at best.
One that no one is satisfied with and many of its proponents freely admit is supposed to be just a compromise, a stepping stone on the way to the real goal, a single-payer system. (Whether or not that's a good thing is a completely different tangent that I'd prefer not to go off on right now.)
Maybe some of them are, but they aren't the people losing their shit about it on reddit.
I wouldn't know. Haven't been on Reddit in a long time.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
How is that not covered in the options I presented?
So you're saying the "Wild wild west" is the way things were in 2014? If so, we'll have to agree to disagree.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Someone made a comparison to a toll road. "Should FedEx pay more for the toll than everyone else?" To which I replied, "Can other people get on the road? If not, then maybe they should."
Um, actually, it's common for toll roads to charge different rates for different types of vehicles.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Hand-waving is not evidence of the existence of other options.
But it's evidence of other options not existing?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But it's evidence of other options not existing?
Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?
-
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
-
@antiquarian said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
You would think that, but banks are even more regulated than ISPs are, and smackdowns generally lead to them finding other ways to be abusive.
It'll work this time. I'm positive we have the right people in charge!
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
But it's evidence of other options not existing?
Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?
No, of course not, I'm just mocking you for saying dumb stuff.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Someone made a comparison to a toll road. "Should FedEx pay more for the toll than everyone else?" To which I replied, "Can other people get on the road? If not, then maybe they should."
Um, actually, it's common for toll roads to charge different rates for different types of vehicles.
It's usually an attempt to base on weight by basing on axles. That still fits under NN, because it would be like slowing a two-packet bundle to half the speed of a one packet bundle.
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Someone made a comparison to a toll road. "Should FedEx pay more for the toll than everyone else?" To which I replied, "Can other people get on the road? If not, then maybe they should."
Um, actually, it's common for toll roads to charge different rates for different types of vehicles.
It's usually an attempt to base on weight by basing on axles. That still fits under NN, because it would be like slowing a two-packet bundle to half the speed of a one packet bundle.
Yeah, except...NETFLIX!
Everyone wants free stuff...
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
Now take this concept to internet speeds.
"You can get 200mbps for $100 a month, but you can pay $10 a month for 10mbps, and $50 for 200mpbs for Netflix"
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
Why?
If all you're using is Netflix, it's cheaper to buy more data only for Netflix.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Tell me again, is "Net Neutrality" really not about the heavy users demanding the rights to keep stealing from the light users via forced subsidies?
Data caps are enough to keep it cheap for the damn light users. Letting the provider's own streaming not count on your caps in a way to harm Netflix is what we want to prevent.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah, except...NETFLIX!
Everyone wants free stuff...
Why do you keep saying this when no one is getting Netflix for free with or without NN?
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah, except...NETFLIX!
Everyone wants free stuff...
Why do you keep saying this when no one is getting Netflix for free with or without NN?
Netflix is benefitting from holding a monopoly on the infrastructure without having to pay for that monopoly. It's making it cheaper for the end customers.
IOW, Netflix is not paying their fair share.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Tell me again, is "Net Neutrality" really not about the heavy users demanding the rights to keep stealing from the light users via forced subsidies?
Data caps are enough to keep it cheap for the damn light users. Letting the provider's own streaming not count on your caps in a way to harm Netflix is what we want to prevent.
That's covered by anti-trust laws.
Government should use the damned laws they have, rather than insisting on a complete take over of the internet.
-
@sockpuppet7
But the providers own streaming doesn’t cost them the same thing as Netflix does, since they are able to tune it for the layout of their network (either via different encoding, putting nodes out at their different central offices, or what have you). And we already allow that model anyway, via cable & internet bundled services (though up until now it has been cable subscribers subsidizing internet users).
-
@xaade TDEMSYR. What "monopoly on infrastructure" does Netflix hold? They're a content company, not an ISP!
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
Why?
If all you're using is Netflix, it's cheaper to buy more data only for Netflix.
Yes. But NN says your ISP can't do that.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
Why?
If all you're using is Netflix, it's cheaper to buy more data only for Netflix.
Yes. But NN says your ISP can't do that.
Well, yeah.
I'm saying that people aren't realizing that NN is actually going to make internet more expensive.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade TDEMSYR. What "monopoly on infrastructure" does Netflix hold? They're a content company, not an ISP!
They're the vast majority of all the packets on the internet right now.
How is that a hard concept to understand.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
Yeah, except...NETFLIX!
Everyone wants free stuff...
Why do you keep saying this when no one is getting Netflix for free with or without NN?
I keep saying this because it's what people keep saying when they point to the Netflix thing WRT NN. I thought it was obvious that I wasn't talking about, like, having an account at Netflix but about the whole network peering (or whatever) brouhaha between their ISP and others.
-
@xaade I don't deny that, but that has exactly nothing to do with "holding a monopoly on infrastructure."
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
Why?
If all you're using is Netflix, it's cheaper to buy more data only for Netflix.
Yes. But NN says your ISP can't do that.
Well, yeah.
I'm saying that people aren't realizing that NN is actually going to make internet more expensive.
Ah, you were saying that being able to buy Netflix streaming capacity was beneficial. I read it as you saying that NN was beneficial, but we were on the same page aside from the grammatical confusion.
-
@masonwheeler said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade I don't deny that, but that has exactly nothing to do with "holding a monopoly on infrastructure."
I mean it in the sense of driving down the middle of the road is hogging the road.
-
@izzion said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@sockpuppet7
But the providers own streaming doesn’t cost them the same thing as Netflix does, since they are able to tune it for the layout of their network (either via different encoding, putting nodes out at their different central offices, or what have you).I don't care about this. Having them to compete is much more important IMO.
And we already allow that model anyway, via cable & internet bundled services (though up until now it has been cable subscribers subsidizing internet users).
Not sure if it's a good thing or if we should allow that.
-
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@boomzilla said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@jaloopa said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
data caps
Irrelevant to net neutrality
Except that seems to run counter to nearly every NN narrative out there.
Exactly. Which is why NN is more complex than being considered. In this case it's actually beneficial to the customer.
Consider that you've reached your data cap, and your provider says, "Ok, it'll be $50 for more data, but you can pay $5 for more Netflix data."
I think you meant detrimental to the consumer?
Why?
If all you're using is Netflix, it's cheaper to buy more data only for Netflix.
Yes. But NN says your ISP can't do that.
Well, yeah.
I'm saying that people aren't realizing that NN is actually going to make internet more expensive.
Ah, you were saying that being able to buy Netflix streaming capacity was beneficial. I read it as you saying that NN was beneficial, but we were on the same page aside from the grammatical confusion.
Most of the people pissed off are afraid that an ISP keeping their own streaming free is a monopoly.
Yes it is. We have monopoly laws, and the government isn't using them.
What makes people think the government will actually uphold the new laws?
-
@xaade said in Net neutrality non-neutrality:
I mean it in the sense of driving down the middle of the road is hogging the road.
- In other words, what you mean is nothing at all like what you actually said.
- Not if the people who built the roads made them to enough capacity. And if they didn't, this is not the driver's fault.