14 ms·

One of the problems with Net Neutrality is that techies (us) and the media have both had a hard time explaining it clearly. Meanwhile those opposed have been a

• gallerdude 10y ago
  "Imagine if your electricity company could decide that you pay more for some appliances than others."
  • kiallmacinnes 10y ago
    This actually happens in Ireland for electric "Storage Heaters", which charge up overnight when electricity is cheap and plentiful, but it's not charged at the usual night rate... (This may actually no longer be a thing, storage heaters aren't used all that often anymore..)
    • makomk 10y ago
      At least in the mainland UK, I think those kind of plans were replaced by Economy 7/10 tariffs that offer the same rate for all off-peak electricity usage regardless of what it's used for a long time ago.
• SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I mean, the real problem is that we have a private utility. I think things like net neutrality can have market solutions if we divorce the last mile operators (to become a utility) from customer ISPs, who merely operate a contract with various backbone networks to connect their clients to servers they want. With last mile paid by taxes, ISPs are only dealing with the cost of backbone transit rates, where there is vibrant competition (and the market seems healthy). This competition to make a good transit deal (to get a cut from clients) is healthy as well, and is how much of the world operates. I think that switching off the US rent-seeking model to something like that would be a long-term solution to issues like net neutrality. Change the incentives to change the behavior. The real explanation is we should use the free market to solve our problems, and government for the portion where a market cant properly operate (ie, the last-mile netwotk).
  • mwc 10y ago
    In New Zealand, our broadband market is structurally separated. The the access provider for both the copper and fibre network (right to the customer premises) is a regulated wholesale only provider, which is required to provide open access to its network on a non-discriminatory basis between all access seekers (retail telecommunications companies).[0] This almost entirely resolves the net neutrality debate in New Zealand. [0] This is a slight simplification: Chorus is the network owner for the copper network, and about 70% of the fibre network. The other 30% of fibre network is also built, owned and operated by wholesale only providers on a comparable basis.
    • erik 10y ago
      How well do you feel that this has worked? I was under the impression that telecom prices in New Zealand were pretty painfully expensive?
      • pmorici 10y ago
        It's a little island in the middle of the pacific everything except maybe sheep is going to be expensive
        • GCA10 10y ago
          Two islands, actually. More than 30 if you count all the outlying ones.
      • jordanthoms 10y ago
        NZ used to have expensive and slow internet (we don't have much TV cable here, so it was all ADSL), but it's gotten a lot better in the last few years. Currently I have 1000mbit down / 500mbit up fiber with unlimited data for $130nz/month (90usd). The model does work pretty well.
      • ioquatix 10y ago
        I have 1000/500 UFB to my house for ~$100USD/month. Unlimited data :)
• zackmorris 10y ago
  Utilities are a natural monopoly because everyone uses them so they end up commoditized (the more marginal the product, the more volume is required, until you end up with a handful of the largest players). We seem to have no problem letting the other natural monopolies like electricity, water, sanitation, education, mail, roads, bridges etc etc etc be run by the government as part of the commons. But we freak out when the government runs the internet because big brother. I might suggest that the real issue is not the bits whizzing around but who is watching. Which would mean that net neutrality is a smokescreen. Fix privacy with free https everywhere (among other things) and people might just realize that they don't need to pay 30% more for advertising and dividends on what could otherwise be a commoditized utility like everything else.
• will_hughes 10y ago
  Here's my attempt: Companies build private roads. To drive on those roads, they install a toll-booth at each entrance onto the road (like your house, office, warehouse, shops, etc) - every vehicle gets charged to enter the road network. Large road companies usually come to some agreement that they'll join their roads at large intersections, but don't install toll-booths there, because it's good for each of them - after all, they still bill every car entering their road network, and better connections between road networks means more users of the road (and thus more revenue). Usually when roads get congested, they make them wider, and where two road networks meet - each company pays to upgrade it's side of the road network. This is how things have worked until recently. Some road companies have decided that instead of upgrading their network, they'll make many of the lanes reserved for 'preferred road network users'. Now, if you order from a store affiliated with the road company - things will work like they used to. But if you order from an unaffiliated store - that delivery will take much longer (or maybe not happen at all, if the road is too congested and the driver turns around and goes home)
  • carlisle_ 10y ago
    It's not that this isn't hard to understand, it's that it's too long of an explanation. There needs to be a concise and succinct point that can be expounded if people are interested in learning. There is some merit in trying to attract your listener and keep them engaged.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • ddddddddq 10y ago
    How would you respond if someone replied with: Yeah, but isn't it in the private roads' owners benefit to reduce congestion, so they create HOV lanes? And what if they want to promote certain kinds of cars like electric and hybrid and therefore allow them to drive in the HOV lanes? Shouldn't they be allowed to? Edit: Not that I necessarily agree, but this seems like a flaw in the analogy.
    • 10y ago
• harshreality 10y ago
  Vi Hart net neutrality in 11 minutes (fixed): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M
  • IshKebab 10y ago
    I think he's talking about explaining it to the average person. They're not going to watch an 11 minute video about it. Their attention span is measured in seconds. This is the explanation against net neutrality: It means Spotify doesn't count against your data allowance! Less than 11 minutes.
• curt15 10y ago
  The opposite of net neutrality is like being charged a toll based on the color of your car.
• optimiz3 10y ago
  You're paying for Internet service, yet without Net Neutrality the ISP can opt to not give you the service you're paying for until they get protection money from someone else. It's fraud.
  • sixothree 10y ago
    They want to charge you to access web site and they want to charge web sites to allow you to visit.
• SkyMarshal 10y ago
  "If you want the Internet to continue working exactly as it has since it was created, a fair and level playing field for both Google and Grandma, then you're in favor of Net Neutrality. If instead you want the telecom natural monopolies to take more control of the Internet and change how it works to bias whoever can pay them more, then you're against Net Neutrality."
  • tylerhou 10y ago
    I'm not sure if I like this explanation because it seems to create an "us" versus "them" mentality without much nuance.
    • Already__Taken 10y ago
      Is there any nuance? We're all equal on here or not.
  • kriro 10y ago
    I like "Google and Grandma" and will use that in the future, thanks :)
  • bluetwo 10y ago
    I was watching an industry spokesperson explain (falsely) that net neutrality forces some companies to fall under one set of regulations, and others to fall under a different set. Getting rid of net neutrality meant that all companies would play by the same rules.
  • rhino369 10y ago
    The problem with this is you aren't really explaining why there needs to be a rule. Which is actually the biggest problem with getting net neutrality implemented. It's sort of a solution in search of a problem. There hasn't been many largescale violations of it even when violations were legal. Comcast blocking bittorrent is the only clearly bad example of a net neutrality violation I can think of. AT&T zero rating DirecTV streaming is the second but a lot of consumers see free and don't care.
• malcolmgreaves 10y ago
  "If you like paying for Netflix twice -- once to Netflix and once to Comcast, Time Warner, or whomever you already buy internet from -- then you want to repeal Net Neutrality." Or: "If you think that Comcast, Time Warner, and other internet providers should not control where you choose to go on the internet, then support Net Neutrality."
• rudyfink 10y ago
  If all roads were owned by companies, should it be OK for UPS to charge FedEx or ambulances more to drive on its roads? This is imperfect, obviously, but I think it gets close to the core issues fairly concisely. Frankly, I, as a citizen, think you should be allowed to sell the pipe, what goes over the pipe, or what the consumer connects to the pipe, but only one of the three. I like that this has reasonably clear divisions and provides competing interests that keep the other parties in check.
  • witty_username 10y ago
    Yes, UPS should because different vehicles cause different amounts of wear to the roads and take up different amounts of space.
    • AgentK20 10y ago
      But can we truly say that these for-profit, mostly un-regulated telecom providers whose mandate is to make money for their shareholders, will put that money towards "wear to the roads" and "upgrading the road system"? How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016? Even more, how do we know that these telecom providers will only charge as much as is needed for the maintenance of the roads, and not just slap on more costs? We can't even really blame the telecom companies for this, either, as they do have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, but in a monopolized market, as ISPs are in most cities in America, the government has to step in at some point to protect the consumer's interests.
      • witty_username 10y ago
        > But can we truly say that these for-profit, mostly un-regulated telecom providers whose mandate is to make money for their shareholders, will put that money towards "wear to the roads" and "upgrading the road system"? Yes, because of competition or the threat of competition. This works for CPU vendors and toll roads; why shouldn't it work for internet service (which is rather fungible)? > How many homes in America don't have access to Broadband internet? IN 2016? I don't know; what are you trying to tell me? Are you saying it's too little or everyone has broadband internet? > We can't even really blame the telecom companies for this, either, as they do have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as possible, but in a monopolized market, as ISPs are in most cities in America, the government has to step in at some point to protect the consumer's interests. Assuming a monopoly: a) Wouldn't antitrust law work if the ISP tried to prioritize their own pages (like their streaming video services)? b) If people wanted net neutrality the ISP would offer such a plan. But then you might say the ISP will price that too high. But why didn't they price normal non-neutral internet service too high then? The threat of competition forces them to price plans reasonably.
• AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical? The only internet path to Comcast ISP customers is through Comcast. Comcast shouldn't be allowed to use that monopoly to destroy their competitors in other markets like TV.
• anigbrowl 10y ago
  There is no magic explanation that's going to suddenly convince people when your opponent has no compunction about lying. You need to have your best, shortest explanations available and articulate them, of course, but you also need to be willing to call out dishonesty and get into a fight over it if it persists even though this will make your life unpleasant some of the time, eg by closing some career choices or making enemies of people.
• kem 10y ago
  ... so one thing I've never understood is why the networks/ISPs aren't then held accountable for what's on their networks? As in, they can regulate all they want, but then they're legally liable for everything on their networks. So if a kiddie porn packet goes over it, they're complicit by virtue of not regulating it. Obviously, I'd prefer net neutrality but I've never understood why that threat doesn't have teeth. I also have never understood why, if a utility has right of way on my property, I don't have say over things like net neutrality. It seems like if they don't want net neutrality, I should arbitrarily be able to price the cost of them using my property, as well as damages from any removal. It's not like they don't make use of public lands. ... or the arguments against municipal broadband... ... or why ISPs are not subject to antitrust statutes...
• byuu 10y ago
  The most useful analogy I've seen is the "ala carte internet" one. "Get Facebook, Twitter, and Google for just $9.99/mo!" "Add on the video package and get Netflix and Hulu for only $24.99/mo more!" "News junkie? Get BBC, NY Times, CNN for $7.99/mo." The reality is of course much more nuanced than that (what's more likely is we'll see these sites being offered bandwidth cap exemptions and faster loading; not outright blocks if you don't pay up), but it conveys the message in a easy-to-digest fashion for the lay person. They're used to this already with their cable packages. Example: http://i.imgur.com/rL33yEm.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rL33yEm.jpg
  • djsumdog 10y ago
    Optus in Australia offers "free social" including Facebook and Twitter. For most normal people, network neutrality takes that away (that's how the big players will spin it). Keep in mind, Wikipedia benefits from non-neutral networks in some developing countries where Wikipedia doesn't count towards the bandwidth cap. It's a pretty complicated world.
    • croon 10y ago
      It's easy and cheap to offer some salad on the house for PR, while you're peddling your other crap when they're already through the door. Wikipedia is only on offer for (disingenous) good will.
  • 794CD01 10y ago
    For the average person paying 60 bucks a month for internet today while only using Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, and Netflix, this sounds like a great deal.
    • kitsy 10y ago
      Until they want to click on a Facebook news article (or a Instagram image in Twitter or a GroupOn link in GMail) and Access Denied message.
      • 10y ago
• rasengan0 10y ago
  Netflix fees go up, Those tweets get a 0.047 cent AT&T surcharge Welcome to LobbyWorld!
• rasengan0 10y ago
  Netflix fees go up, Those tweets get a 0.047 cent AT&T surcharge Welcome to LobbyWorld!
• hamandcheese 10y ago
  "Imagine if there was a different speed limit depending on if you were driving to McDonalds or to Burger King"
  • amelius 10y ago
    To which the reply will be: "If Burger King pays someone to enable me to get there faster, then that's cool!" (devil's advocate)
    • simonh 10y ago
      How about if the road company threatened to put speed bumps on the roads unless the restaurant companies paid to not have them installed, and Burger King paid but McDonalds didn't? Oh, and you already paid the road company a toll to use the road to drive to the restaurants in the first place.
      • amelius 10y ago
        That's much better. But now the reply could be: "The customer is free to choose a different road company. And the road company is free to choose its business model. The free market will decide which road company offers the best price/performance ratio in the end." (again, devil's advocate)
        • bb611 10y ago
          But in the US the average consumer doesn't have a meaningful choice between road companies: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-no-broadband-competition-at-25mbps-fcc-chair-says/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/most-of-the-us-has-n...
          • simonh 10y ago
            This is the heart of it. Free market economics is a wonderful thing and as a civilization we have reaped enormous rewards from it, I'm a true believer, but if your market produces natural monopolies that are highly stable then that's not really a market anymore and it's certainly not free or fair. Adam Smith, the father of free market economics, was very clear about this. Markets must be well regulated in order to remain free and fair.
• Terr_ 10y ago
  You pay more for the same electricity for your toaster, when it's a brand that isn't owned by the power company.
  • cabasse_ 10y ago
    if you don't rent your toaster from the power company
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• tunap 10y ago
  I use a water company analogy. If you use the water for irrigation, you pay $X. If you use it for showering or dishes you pay $Y. If it's for drinking or cooking you pay $Z. Different applications for the same commodity that makes no difference to the provider outside of volume, which you already pay per unit. Should you pay more per unit if you water your lawn, if you have a pool? This is what the data providers are doing to the 'other' supply pipe coming into your home.
  • foodstances 10y ago
    I think that's a bad analogy. I'm in support of net neutrality but your analogy just made me want to support different pricing for water. Water is a finite, possibly scarce resource, and there are shortages in places in the US. If I lived in one of those places, I would sure as hell want some asshole filling his pool during a shortage to pay more than the rest of us pay for basic drinking water. Similarly, I would want companies that bottle that water up and sell it at a premium to pay more than everyone else. Municipalities already limit outdoor water usage for exactly this reason. You can drink all the water you want but you can only use it outside to water your grass or fill your pool on odd or even days. Your analogy is saying that shouldn't be allowed, because internet.
    • creeble 10y ago
      Perhaps electricity might be a better analogy?
      • amelius 10y ago
        Nope, it's also a scarce resource. And similarly to water, excessive use is (usually still) bad for the planet.
        • creeble 10y ago
          But internet connectivity is somehow inherently limitless and deliverable for free?
• dahart 10y ago
  > What is the best way to explain the concept With net neutrality, all websites you visit are equally fast and equally accessible. Without it, someone else is allowed to choose for you which ones are fast, and which ones are accessible. As a consumer of a web without net neutrality, you lose some ability to choose, and you may lose some access. It is fundamentally about the freedom to choose, not about payments or bandwidth numbers, but choice. As many of us are burgeoning web site creators and entrepreneurs, lack of net neutrality gives advantages to existing businesses who have more money than their competitors. It allows bigger sites to drive traffic to them and away from competition. This will make it harder, not easier, to start new businesses that rely on internet traffic.
• dahart 10y ago
  I keep feeling like the debate over Net Neutrality is ignoring the elephant in the room: that ISPs have access to inspect your traffic at all. We don't need rules to enforce a neutral internet if we create a traffic system where 3rd parties can't see your destination before you get there. We don't need to have a debate or try to explain the reasons at all if we use better encryption and routing protocols. This is all technically doable, I just feel like we haven't allowed privacy to be a high enough priority, and we won't really get net neutrality until we decide to make privacy more important than giving ISPs and government the ability to look at everything we do online.
• awj 10y ago
  > What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical? "What if your mail carrier had sole power to decide how quickly (or if at all) you got your mail?" It's probably not a particularly accessible analogy for most of us here, but it's easily relatable across generations without getting bogged down in technical details.
  • ebiester 10y ago
    There are discounts for different types of mail already, though. (bulk mail, for example.)
    • dahart 10y ago
      Currently you get to choose which type of mail you're sending, you get to choose your discount. It's not about the discounts. It's about the carrier making the decision which one you get, and taking that choice away from you.
    • awj 10y ago
      Yeah, "types of mail", not "sources of mail". The difference here is that PF Chang's and my local Chinese place are equally as capable of sending me bulk mail.
• wnevets 10y ago
  > What is the best way to explain the concept that can be quickly understood by those that are non-technical? Your electric bill. Should your electric company be allowed to charge you or the manufacturer of <insert favorite device> more money to power <insert favorite device>?
• hawski 10y ago
  Prices for electricity depending on the brand of the manufacturer. For X dollars you can power Bosch, Philips and Electrolux. For additional XX dollars you can power Amica and Whirlpool products. If you have cheap noname brand toaster, sorry no service for you. or pay extra. We are sorry but we no longer support Samsung products in this plan, would you like to upgrade your plan?
• pjc50 10y ago
  Imagine if toll roads looked inside cars and trucks before deciding how much to charge. Or charged more for e.g. Ford cars until the manufacturer paid protection money.
• ashearer 10y ago
  It's the electric company charging different rates depending on the brands of your appliances (even if they use the same amount of electricity). They can also charge the brands themselves for good placement on this list. And they have their own private brand, which gets the lowest tier of rates. They initially present this as a special discount, and raise the price of everything else later to compensate.
• webmaven 10y ago
  John Oliver's take from 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU