Net Neutrality (US)

[anonnom]

starting this thread to discuss net neutrality.

please keep it civil!

[edit]

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

 

[CookieMonster]

I would rather my ISP not utilize my fapping patterns to target my ads. (They probably already do that, but still!)

 

[Benn Swagger]

I think it will be civil, because 100% agreed against those ash companies.

 

[elfelganor]

What's the discussion is about though?

 

[anonnom]

What's the discussion is about though?

yeah sorry. i started this thread because another thread was getting off topic.
see original post edit.

 

[EllaKrael]

There was a discussion about Net Neutrality going on in a game thread (some of it was civil, some of it wasn't), I joined quite near the end and asked a question to try and understand the issue (and avoid the uncivil posts).
My part of the discussion went something like:

Serious question:
Isn't the internet already policed/run/controlled by Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, the Domain Name hosts, and their ilk? They get to decide who's messages get heard, who is verified, who can be online, and who can earn from ads...
How is an ISP (ComCast or whomever) blocking access any different to what the Online Service providers can do now even with Net Neutrality?

Consider Internet as a bunch of buildings connected by streets. When you want to read a book you ask Google (or another search engine): "Where are the books?" and Google shows you all the libraries. Among those you choose LittleFamilyLibrary and then you walk towards it.
Normally you have paid to your ISP (that control the streets) the right to walk on all the streets, so you choose the shortest way; but without Net Neutrality the ISPs tell you:
"LittleFamilyLibrary didn't paid me a bunch more of money so this road is blocked, if you want to go there you have to pay me more or walk 5 miles more (sometimes without paying more you simply cannot go there), but BigCorpLibrary paid me so you can choose the shortest walk if you choose to go there instead of the little one".

Moral of the story:
- little website owners are fucked since nobody will visit their sites (because they have to pay more)
- users that want to visit less popular websites have to pay more and they will probably see those sites disappear

(don't nitpick my metaphor, I know it's not very very accurate XD )

My understanding is the concern that ISPs would add an extra layer of control to what is already there. For example, fictional ISP SuperNet might have a movie streaming site similar to Netflix called SuperFlix, and in order to promote it, they could restrict the speeds of their users to Netflix while allowing full speeds to SuperFlix. Or maybe a news site is critical of SuperFlix, so they could impede access to that news site. And in many parts of the US there is only one real ISP to choose from, so a customer wouldn't be able to just move to another ISP if this was happening.

So... What "Net Neutrality" does, from the analogy (which I enjoyed) and as I think by law ISPs are allowed to charge more for packages and services so it doesn't stop them charging you for more/less bandwidth or speed (only that they can't reduce/increase speed for certain things or parts of the internet) is force the ISPs to "treat all Internet traffic equally". Yes?

So how is an ISP slowing (or even blocking) connections to LittleFamilyLibrary different from Google not showing it at the top of their search results (or even in the first 10 pages, or removing their app from play, or blocking their youtube vids) OR GoDaddy blocking their domain from being used OR Twitter banning their account; simply because they didn't pay them or they directly compete with their own Library service or some other random reason (they stock a book that the owner of said companies don't like)?

And then it was asked of us to move any further discussion on the topic to a thread in General, which anonnom has very kindly done.

 

[elfelganor]

Ahhh...I don't know how Net neutrality going down would affect my region as I live in Asia. Maybe I can see an increase in my payment...:\

FYI, loved the example by ThunderZoo It reminded me of MTX and DLC XD

 

[Benn Swagger]

A simple chart to understand Net Neutrality.
Also, USA merchantile system is a role model for companies around the world. So if this succeed, mean the whole world will copy paste the system. So it isn't about USA, it's about us.


In short, you still have "Internet". But when you gonna access a site, you need another "permission / $$$" from your ISP.
Also they try to limiting bandwidth. As all of this still in theories ... the example is like this. If you use YouTube without buying the YouTube package from your ISP, then either your YouTube are blocked, OR slow connection.

 

[EllaKrael]

Before Net Neutrality ISPs maybe slowed connections to competitors (which they got called out on) so your extra charges example didn't happen before; why should it happen after removing it. The problem I see is for:
(a) smaller/independent websites, as ThunderZoo worried about, that can't fight back against ISPs - BUT those small sites/owners already suffer what you're saying ISPs may do by what online monoliths already do.
(b) when you only have one provider to chose from (which does happen in some areas) as in an open competitive industry where you can change providers this probably won't happen as people would switch provider.

Just to be clear I am not against Net Neutrality, in fact I agree with it in principle, but it hasn't stopped what it set out to stop from being done by non-ISPs (net monoliths and OSPs).
Removing it might allow ISPs to try and bully the monoliths who have bullied smaller sites/companies for far too long. Although if ISPs tried to fleece (charge as in your example, rather than just throttle connectivity) the monoliths of the internet (Google, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever else) they could stop access to their sites from certain ISPs in retaliation and so those ISPs could lose customers - essentially leaving everyone in a Mexican stand-off.

Maybe the solution is to expand Net Neutrality to also reign in the monoliths?

 

[bluehound36]

A simple chart to understand Net Neutrality.
Also, USA merchantile system is a role model for companies around the world. So if this succeed, mean the whole world will copy paste the system. So it isn't about USA, it's about us.
View attachment 47124

Net Neutrality can be easily summed up. It's about controlling the flow of information, who's doing it and how much money they get to charge the customer/consumer. Liberals basically control it right now with net neutrality in place and once it's removed (or if), conservatives will control it. If you start seeing a rise in prices, an increase in censorship, etc then you know all the naysayers about repealing it were right. If not, then just another argument the left was entirely inaccurate about. Personally, I think it should be left in place as the stop gap measure it was meant to be until certain issues in D.C. are corrected later down the road (if that ever happens). Sometimes it's better to not even find out, no sense in basically smacking a hornet's nest with a stick. Generally, that doesn't end well for the person doing it.

 

[EllaKrael]

Net Neutrality can be easily summed up. It's about controlling the flow of information, who's doing it and how much money they get to charge the customer/consumer. Liberals basically control it right now with net neutrality in place and once it's removed (or if), conservatives will control it. If you start seeing a rise in prices, an increase in censorship, etc then you know all the naysayers about repealing it were right. If not, then just another argument the left was entirely inaccurate about. Personally, I think it should be left in place as the stop gap measure it was meant to be until certain issues in D.C. are corrected later down the road (if that ever happens). Sometimes it's better to not even find out, no sense in basically smacking a hornet's nest with a stick. Generally, that doesn't end well for the person doing it.

So if I replace monolith with "liberal" and ISP with "conservative" in my previous posts, that's what this is all about?
Can we not just amend Net Neutrality to also stop the censorship/control by monoliths [Liberals] and hold them accountable the same way we would ISPs [Conservatives] for any actions? (I guess replacing them does kinda work)

 

[baneini]

99% of the people are pro-NN. The discussions about it are the definition of a circle-jerk and thus are pointless.

I myself am pretty bored of the bi-annual "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" outrages. EU has permanent legal protections for NN, why cant US have them? Maybe its for the best if NN is repealed so we'd be spared of yet more "save-nn" campaigns over and over and over until the heat death of the universe.

You voted for Trump who elected current FCC chairman and you voted for whoever congressman accepted bribes from ISPs so you should be fine with the outcomes right? God bless democracy and all that.

 

[dartis]

99% of the people are pro-NN. The discussions about it are the definition of a circle-jerk and thus are pointless.

I myself am pretty bored of the bi-annual "SAVE NET NEUTRALITY" outrages. EU has permanent legal protections for NN, why cant US have them? Maybe its for the best if NN is repealed so we'd be spared of yet more "save-nn" campaigns over and over and over until the heat death of the universe.

You voted for Trump who elected current FCC chairman and you voted for whoever congressman accepted bribes from ISPs so you should be fine with the outcomes right? God bless democracy and all that.

It's not that black and white. Not every American voted for trump. In fact, Clinton got the popular vote. Though, I am glad that none of your politicians accept bribes; maybe we should all move to your country?

Aside from that, the nature of man is "you give 'em an inch and they take as much as they can." So, if someone can figure out a way to counter that, then we can stop talking about NN. As well as dictators, crime, corruption, war and generally most wrongs in the world.

 

[bluehound36]

So if I replace monolith with "liberal" and ISP with "conservative" in my previous posts, that's what this is all about?
Can we not just amend Net Neutrality to also stop the censorship/control by monoliths [Liberals] and hold them accountable the same way we would ISPs [Conservatives] for any actions? (I guess replacing them does kinda work)

Yep, that's all it has ever been about. The strange thing about the left is that once they had net neutrality put in place, it actually did protect the consumer to some extent despite it also advanced their own agenda to control the political narrative in our country. So, I guess in that regard they care a little bit more about the citizens than the right does. Now the extreme side of conservatives want to do the same thing out of petty revenge. Guess who gets stuck in the middle of this parental temper tantrum? The citizens or as they see us now, consumers. This issue really puts it into perspective how little they actually give a damn what any of us think cause the vast majority want net neutrality left in place but every year nearly, they keep pushing to repeal it ever since it was implemented. Companies like comcast were actually starting to do exactly what it was designed to prevent and I find it funny how many of those telecoms keep saying they won't engage in such behavior. Why anyone believes them is just plain sad.

 

[EllaKrael]

Yep, that's all it has ever been about. The strange thing about the left is that once they had net neutrality put in place, it actually did protect the consumer to some extent despite it also advanced their own agenda to control the political narrative in our country. So, I guess in that regard they care a little bit more about the citizens than the right does. Now the extreme side of conservatives want to do the same thing out of petty revenge. Guess who gets stuck in the middle of this parental temper tantrum? The citizens or as they see us now, consumers. This issue really puts it into perspective how little they actually give a damn what any of us think cause the vast majority want net neutrality left in place but every year nearly, they keep pushing to repeal it ever since it was implemented. Companies like comcast were actually starting to do exactly what it was designed to prevent and I find it funny how many of those telecoms keep saying they won't engage in such behavior. Why anyone believes them is just plain sad.

As a centrist/egalitarian I often find myself being described/attacked quite viciously by both sides in debates as they both (at the extreme) tend to run on emotion and belief as opposed to facts and logic, this also means a lot of the these arguments go over my head for being angry rants filled with hate for the other persons rather than on the topics merits, so thank you and the other posters for helping me understand the crux of the matter.

So I see it as Net Neutrality good, but some way to have it extend to the monoliths (not just support a specific ideology) better.

Please note benani: I didn't vote for Trump as I'm not American and I would love America to join the 21st century and have a woman president, but I would not have voted for Hillary.

 

[anne O'nymous]

A simple chart to understand Net Neutrality.
Also, USA merchantile system is a role model for companies around the world. So if this succeed, mean the whole world will copy paste the system. So it isn't about USA, it's about us.

Perhaps about you, but not necessarily about us.
What make the attack against net-neutrality really possible in the USA is the fact that ISP have more or less monopoly where they are. There's more than one ISP in the country, but most of the time you'll find that there's only one where you live. So, once they get ride of the obligation to not mess-up, they'll obviously do as please them. It's not like their customers will have choice, since so many of them can't go to another ISP without moving to another town/county/state.
It's this competition which protect net-neutrality outside of the USA. Obviously, there's ISP which abuse of their position ; they are the number one, or the historical phone company in their country, so they are trusted and can charge a little more because of this. But they can't start to really over price their services, since anyone can change its ISP. For the same reason they can't start to mess with the quality of the said service, or start filtering this or that. So they end in a position where they have the obligation to respect the net-neutrality, just because there will always be one of their competitor which will jump on the opportunity and stole their customers and profits.

This said, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't feel concerned by this problem. The fact that we are in a safe space where net-neutrality will be preserved doesn't mean that we will not suffer. If net-neutrality stop to be a reality in the USA, there's a whole part of internet which will be targeted. Between the ISP which will try to enforce their moral, and the one which will go full, "you want porn ? Well, it's $10 more now", our perversion isn't safe.
Even sites based, or with servers, outside of the USA will suffer and lost customers, just because the USA is the biggest part of both sites and internet users. In the end, only the strongest will survive, while the other will disappear or ban porn from their content.

 

[johndoe1545]

pftttttttttttttt..... from where i am... they already started to block some shit... claiming them to be against the law and shit...

 

[anne O'nymous]

pftttttttttttttt..... from where i am... they already started to block some shit... claiming them to be against the law and shit...

By "they", you mean the ISP or the government ? Because they are two different things. Like @baneini said, in Europa, Net-neutrality is enforced the

You must be registered to see the links

and EU laws, but it doesn't mean that governments can't decide by law that this or that content must be blocked. This because the said laws focus on quality/bandwidth more than the content itself :

You must be registered to see the links

"ISPs are prohibited from blocking or slowing down of Internet traffic, except where necessary. The exceptions are limited to: traffic management to comply with a legal order, to ensure network integrity and security, and to manage congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally."

After, all depend of the importance and credibility of ISP in your country. I know that in mine (France), the government tried few times to impose some filtering but never really achieved it. Each times ISP goes against it stating, which is true, that it will be ineffective (if it's DNS filtering) because too easy to bypass, or way too expensive (any other case) in money for them, in time/quality of service for their customers.
The last time they really tried was around 2014. It made a lot of noise, a lot of libertarians were on their nerves, and it the end it never happened. But in the same time, this filtering is a reality in UK, even if I don't know how effective it is.

 

[Cyan]

After, all depend of the importance and credibility of ISP in your country.

I guess that makes Americans screwed.

Largest USA Providers by size -

Comcast
Charter (Time Warner)
AT&T
Verizon
CenturyLink
Cox(Suddenlink)

The first two on the list are notoriously known as having the worst possible service and customer service imaginable (They are also the largest by far). I think Comcast literally got an award for the worst customer service in the country last year. Some of these companies need to die off.

But just like you said... There's no alternative for most people.

P.S. - fuckyoucomcast.com lol

 

[johndoe1545]

By "they", you mean the ISP or the government ? Because they are two different things. Like @baneini said, in Europa, Net-neutrality is enforced the

You must be registered to see the links

and EU laws, but it doesn't mean that governments can't decide by law that this or that content must be blocked. This because the said laws focus on quality/bandwidth more than the content itself :

You must be registered to see the links

"ISPs are prohibited from blocking or slowing down of Internet traffic, except where necessary. The exceptions are limited to: traffic management to comply with a legal order, to ensure network integrity and security, and to manage congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally."

After, all depend of the importance and credibility of ISP in your country. I know that in mine (France), the government tried few times to impose some filtering but never really achieved it. Each times ISP goes against it stating, which is true, that it will be ineffective (if it's DNS filtering) because too easy to bypass, or way too expensive (any other case) in money for them, in time/quality of service for their customers.
The last time they really tried was around 2014. It made a lot of noise, a lot of libertarians were on their nerves, and it the end it never happened. But in the same time, this filtering is a reality in UK, even if I don't know how effective it is.

basically the same thing... as they have some equity shares in isp company (heck we only have one major company)...