9 ms·

I don't get why I see arguments like 'Oh, why would it matter, its not neutral anyway' or 'it won't change anything' and no one tries to explain why allowing an

by drucik 9y ago

I don't get why I see arguments like 'Oh, why would it matter, its not neutral anyway' or 'it won't change anything' and no one tries to explain why allowing an end of net neutrality would be bad. I would say the reason why net neutrality is important is the following: 'On paper' the end of net neutrality will mean that big companies like google or facebook (which, according to the website, do not support net neutrality [why would they, right?]) will pay the ISPs for priority connection to their service, and ISPs will be able to create 2 payment plans for their customers - throttled network and high-speed, super unthrottled network for some premium money. And some people are fine with that - 'it's their service' or 'i only use email so i don't care' or other things like that. But we are living in a capitalism world and things aren't that nice. If it is not illegal to slow down connections 'just because', I bet in some (probably short) time companies will start abusing it to protect their markets and their profits. I'd expect under the table payments, so the company F or B will be favored by a given ISP, and you can forget about startups trying to shake up the giants.

jrimbault 9y ago
Also, ISPs could make pay both the companies providing a service and the customers of those companies. Just so that they can get in contact in the first place. To companies: "You want your customers to have faster access to your services right ? Or we could cut you off." To customers: "You want to access those services faster don't you ?" Seems like a classic mafia move.
- andai 9y ago
  How's this different from priority shipping for example?
  - napperjabber 9y ago
    How do you debug your slow internet connection? What tools let you know you're getting what you're paying for?
  - custos 9y ago
    In priority shipping, only one side pays the fee. If the post office or UPS said "oh you want it there faster, pay X" to both sender and receiver, and both were required to pay for it to be faster, then it would be the same.
    - tertius 9y ago
      So the burden of the cost is on the sending party? In reality the cost is really distributed. The sender hands over the money to the shipping company, but that money comes from the receiver. And the infrastructure is supported by the community at large.
      - custos 9y ago
        So when I pay for gigabit internet, and netflix pays their "streaming priority" charge, I get netflix content at gigabit speed. But when I pay for gigabit internet, and some random startup doesn't pay the ISPs "streaming priority" charge, I get them at some rate limited amount less than what I pay for (gigabit). That is the problem. The consumer gets screwed, startups get screwed, and the ISPs profit from both consumer and businesses.
  - abawany 9y ago
    My guess is monopoly (approximately). ISP choice for the vast majority of US people is practically nil - you either have a cable provider (Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, etc.) or a phone provider (Verizon, AT&T). With priority shipping, if you don't like Amazon's non-subtle nudges to you to pay for Prime, you just move on to Walmart.com, Rakuten, or an eBay vendor. Treating ISP as a utility company was the right model and the current FCC is not doing consumers a service by killing this model.
  - CleaveIt2Beaver 9y ago
    The USPS doesn't also own the roads, rivers and skies they transport your package through, and can't blockade people from moving the package themselves, or with another service.
  - drtz 9y ago
    It'd be like if Amazon owned the only road to your house and said Amazon couriers get to use the left lane at 65mph and everyone else delivering packages from Walmart or Target use the right lane at 30mph, unless both you and Walmart pay extra to use the fast lane.
    - mdpopescu 9y ago
      If Amazon owned the road, I would be fine with that. If a company owns a mall, I'm fine with them letting companies that pay them more have a bigger shop, and those paying them less have a smaller shop. I'm also fine with them giving their own products preferential treatment. (This actually happens here - all mall companies have their own products, very visibly exposed.)
demonshalo 9y ago
> we are living in a capitalism world Far from it. Far far far faaaaaaaaaar from it!
- drucik 9y ago
  And by that you mean that we live in what, communism? IMO what I can see 'around' is the capitalism at it's worst, with cash aggregation by top players. And who has the money has the power, as it was since the beginning of time.
  - supremesaboteur 9y ago
    It is possible to be far from a free market economy and still not be completely communist
    - drucik 9y ago
      I didn't mean that it has to be either capitalism or communism. What I meant is that IMO what we have right now is still a form of modern capitalism, albeit I agree that it became kind of twisted in comparison to the capitalism from the beginning of the 20th century.
      - abawany 9y ago
        If capitalism is getting to the form that Standard Oil followed at the turn of the last century, perhaps it is disingenuous to continue calling it capitalism?
        drucik 9y ago
        Or maybe Standard Oil was a forefather of modern capitalism? Maybe that was a pure form of it? I'd say the idea that the state does not intervene in the market is heartwarming, but if the state doesn't protect it's people the market will abuse them. Anyway I'm sure that there is some economic forum, where this discussion would be more appropriate :)
rmc 9y ago
One way to explain it is to ask if your phone company (which is your ISP) should be allowed to block Skype/Facetime. After all, if you're skyping (or facetiming), then you're not paying them for a phone call! (Or should Skype be allowed pay your phone company to block Facetime (or vice versa)). Surely it's in the phone company's interest to not help their compeditor. (If your internet is from your cable TV provider, ask if they should be allowed block Netflix). Examples like that are easy to show the downsides of net neutrality.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ehsankia 9y ago
  I like thinking of it like other utilities, such as water and electricity. Imagine if your electric company could block power to one of your devices because it's a competing device. Or if it could stop you from using water for drinking to promote some drink they have. The data going through should be just as blind as water through pipes or electricity through cables.
noibl 9y ago
> big companies like google or facebook (which, according to the website, do not support net neutrality [why would they, right?]) It doesn't quite say that. It says[1] that they didn't sign up to the event on the 12th. However, news outlets are reporting otherwise.[2][3] The Internet Association, which they founded, launched its petition site[4] on Monday. Microsoft is now also a member. Apple, for whatever reason, is not. Google also has its own 'Take Action' page[5] but I'm not sure how old it is. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated support for net neutrality.[6] But both companies have been criticized[7][8] in the past for using a self-serving interpretation of the term. And, as the recent EU ruling against Google reminds us, telcos are not the only internet gatekeepers we need to worry about.[9] [1] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants [2] https://www.recode.net/2017/7/8/15938164/net-neutrality-day-of-action-amazon-google-twitter-okcupid-pornhub-facebook https://www.recode.net/2017/7/8/15938164/net-neutrality-day-... [3] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/google-amazon-protest-against-fcc-reverse-net-neutrality.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/google-amazon-protest-against... [4] http://iadayofaction.org http://iadayofaction.org [5] https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h... [6] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 [7] https://www.facebook.com/notes/access-now/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/access-now/open-letter-to-mar... [8] https://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-and-google-are-happy-to-support-net-neutrality-in-us-but-violate-it-in-india https://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-a... [9] https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/eu-google-antitrust-cases-vs-googles-net-neutrality-leadership https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/eu-google-antitr... (this article was written a year ago by someone who gets funding from various telcos and Microsoft: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scott_Cleland http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scott_Cleland )
- drucik 9y ago
  KK, thx for clarification. I'll allow myself to not edit the original post, but I promise I'll stop bashing Facebook and Google in my head.
- 9y ago
treebeard901 9y ago
Something that is not mentioned often is the combined effect of losing net neutrality and the recent decision to let the ISPs sell your advertising data. It's a two pronged attack on the internet. The ISPs data collection is going to be more valuable than Facebook or Google simply because they have everything and most importantly the ISPs can verify physical identities. So internet ad revenue is being attacked from one angle and then they are extorting money for packet delivery on the other.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Another reason for all web developers to encrypt their websites.
  - losteric 9y ago
    That helps, but not entirely. The metadata of which sites you're visiting is still valuable advertising information - especially when browsing through a phone (geolocation).
  - tomaskafka 9y ago
    This doesn't help - just a set of domains (and page count + times of connection) you connected to last month is a very precise and valuable identifier of who you are and what your interests are.
- rsync 9y ago
  "It's a two pronged attack on the internet. The ISPs data collection is going to be more valuable than Facebook or Google simply because they have everything and most importantly the ISPs can verify physical identities." Third prong: lawmakers advocating "closing the VPN loophole". Because terrorism.
- gkya 9y ago
  Would it be possible to connect to Internet w/o ISPs?
philipodonnell 9y ago
Probably worth pointing out that this already occurs now for very large companies who have to pay for upgraded uplink connections or data centers inside the networks (Netflix et al). Also part of why the bigger companies aren't pushing too hard, they have to pay this stuff under the current rules so new rules won't help them much.
- extrapickles 9y ago
  Some of the issue was that ISPs refused to upgrade their peering connections even when the other party offered to pay for both ends of the upgrade. They wanted to double dip, and anything short of that they refused.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    Yes, and this is extremely corrosive to free market operation of the internet. Customers lose visibility into what sites cost (in time and money) because the cost of the deals that the ISP force onto companies are hidden on both sides of the transaction. Customers can't really make good market choices among sites or ISPs cleanly with these kinds of deals going on, so the market becomes much less efficient at delivering value to the economy.
theseatoms 9y ago
Consumer choice between ISPs solves most of these problems.
- aaron_m04 9y ago
  How do you propose to enable that?
  - theseatoms 9y ago
    It's a hard problem that states and localities should sort out. High fixed costs, regional monopolies, etc. I get it. I'm just saying that almost this entire, complex discussion can be reduced to that crucial point.
  - spc476 9y ago
    Hindsight is 20/20, but I suspect that the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984 should have been along service lines, not geographic lines. One company should have been given control of the physical wires, and that's all they do---they have have the right-of-ways to run cable and maintain the physical structure. And they have a mandate to provide service to any company that wants to provide a service (route data), and the other company provides the service, but they aren't in a monopolistic position. What's the natural monopoly here? The physical infrastructure. What isn't? The service---phone, television, data. Could this still be done? Yes, but I suspect the politics would be worse today than in 1984.

by drucik 9y ago

jrimbault 9y ago

Also, ISPs could make pay both the companies providing a service and the customers of those companies. Just so that they can get in contact in the first place. To companies: "You want your customers to have faster access to your services right ? Or we could cut you off." To customers: "You want to access those services faster don't you ?" Seems like a classic mafia move.

andai 9y ago
How's this different from priority shipping for example?
- napperjabber 9y ago
  How do you debug your slow internet connection? What tools let you know you're getting what you're paying for?
- custos 9y ago
  In priority shipping, only one side pays the fee. If the post office or UPS said "oh you want it there faster, pay X" to both sender and receiver, and both were required to pay for it to be faster, then it would be the same.
  - tertius 9y ago
    So the burden of the cost is on the sending party? In reality the cost is really distributed. The sender hands over the money to the shipping company, but that money comes from the receiver. And the infrastructure is supported by the community at large.
    - custos 9y ago
      So when I pay for gigabit internet, and netflix pays their "streaming priority" charge, I get netflix content at gigabit speed. But when I pay for gigabit internet, and some random startup doesn't pay the ISPs "streaming priority" charge, I get them at some rate limited amount less than what I pay for (gigabit). That is the problem. The consumer gets screwed, startups get screwed, and the ISPs profit from both consumer and businesses.
- abawany 9y ago
  My guess is monopoly (approximately). ISP choice for the vast majority of US people is practically nil - you either have a cable provider (Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, etc.) or a phone provider (Verizon, AT&T). With priority shipping, if you don't like Amazon's non-subtle nudges to you to pay for Prime, you just move on to Walmart.com, Rakuten, or an eBay vendor. Treating ISP as a utility company was the right model and the current FCC is not doing consumers a service by killing this model.
- CleaveIt2Beaver 9y ago
  The USPS doesn't also own the roads, rivers and skies they transport your package through, and can't blockade people from moving the package themselves, or with another service.
- drtz 9y ago
  It'd be like if Amazon owned the only road to your house and said Amazon couriers get to use the left lane at 65mph and everyone else delivering packages from Walmart or Target use the right lane at 30mph, unless both you and Walmart pay extra to use the fast lane.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    If Amazon owned the road, I would be fine with that. If a company owns a mall, I'm fine with them letting companies that pay them more have a bigger shop, and those paying them less have a smaller shop. I'm also fine with them giving their own products preferential treatment. (This actually happens here - all mall companies have their own products, very visibly exposed.)

demonshalo 9y ago

> we are living in a capitalism world Far from it. Far far far faaaaaaaaaar from it!

drucik 9y ago
And by that you mean that we live in what, communism? IMO what I can see 'around' is the capitalism at it's worst, with cash aggregation by top players. And who has the money has the power, as it was since the beginning of time.
- supremesaboteur 9y ago
  It is possible to be far from a free market economy and still not be completely communist
  - drucik 9y ago
    I didn't mean that it has to be either capitalism or communism. What I meant is that IMO what we have right now is still a form of modern capitalism, albeit I agree that it became kind of twisted in comparison to the capitalism from the beginning of the 20th century.
    - abawany 9y ago
      If capitalism is getting to the form that Standard Oil followed at the turn of the last century, perhaps it is disingenuous to continue calling it capitalism?
      - drucik 9y ago
        Or maybe Standard Oil was a forefather of modern capitalism? Maybe that was a pure form of it? I'd say the idea that the state does not intervene in the market is heartwarming, but if the state doesn't protect it's people the market will abuse them. Anyway I'm sure that there is some economic forum, where this discussion would be more appropriate :)

rmc 9y ago

One way to explain it is to ask if your phone company (which is your ISP) should be allowed to block Skype/Facetime. After all, if you're skyping (or facetiming), then you're not paying them for a phone call! (Or should Skype be allowed pay your phone company to block Facetime (or vice versa)). Surely it's in the phone company's interest to not help their compeditor. (If your internet is from your cable TV provider, ask if they should be allowed block Netflix). Examples like that are easy to show the downsides of net neutrality.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ehsankia 9y ago
I like thinking of it like other utilities, such as water and electricity. Imagine if your electric company could block power to one of your devices because it's a competing device. Or if it could stop you from using water for drinking to promote some drink they have. The data going through should be just as blind as water through pipes or electricity through cables.

noibl 9y ago

> big companies like google or facebook (which, according to the website, do not support net neutrality [why would they, right?]) It doesn't quite say that. It says[1] that they didn't sign up to the event on the 12th. However, news outlets are reporting otherwise.[2][3] The Internet Association, which they founded, launched its petition site[4] on Monday. Microsoft is now also a member. Apple, for whatever reason, is not. Google also has its own 'Take Action' page[5] but I'm not sure how old it is. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated support for net neutrality.[6] But both companies have been criticized[7][8] in the past for using a self-serving interpretation of the term. And, as the recent EU ruling against Google reminds us, telcos are not the only internet gatekeepers we need to worry about.[9] [1] https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants [2] https://www.recode.net/2017/7/8/15938164/net-neutrality-day-of-action-amazon-google-twitter-okcupid-pornhub-facebook https://www.recode.net/2017/7/8/15938164/net-neutrality-day-... [3] http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/google-amazon-protest-against-fcc-reverse-net-neutrality.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/google-amazon-protest-against... [4] http://iadayofaction.org http://iadayofaction.org [5] https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.h... [6] https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 [7] https://www.facebook.com/notes/access-now/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/access-now/open-letter-to-mar... [8] https://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-and-google-are-happy-to-support-net-neutrality-in-us-but-violate-it-in-india https://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-a... [9] https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/eu-google-antitrust-cases-vs-googles-net-neutrality-leadership https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/eu-google-antitr... (this article was written a year ago by someone who gets funding from various telcos and Microsoft: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scott_Cleland http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scott_Cleland )

drucik 9y ago
KK, thx for clarification. I'll allow myself to not edit the original post, but I promise I'll stop bashing Facebook and Google in my head.
9y ago

treebeard901 9y ago

Something that is not mentioned often is the combined effect of losing net neutrality and the recent decision to let the ISPs sell your advertising data. It's a two pronged attack on the internet. The ISPs data collection is going to be more valuable than Facebook or Google simply because they have everything and most importantly the ISPs can verify physical identities. So internet ad revenue is being attacked from one angle and then they are extorting money for packet delivery on the other.

mtgx 9y ago
Another reason for all web developers to encrypt their websites.
- losteric 9y ago
  That helps, but not entirely. The metadata of which sites you're visiting is still valuable advertising information - especially when browsing through a phone (geolocation).
- tomaskafka 9y ago
  This doesn't help - just a set of domains (and page count + times of connection) you connected to last month is a very precise and valuable identifier of who you are and what your interests are.
rsync 9y ago
"It's a two pronged attack on the internet. The ISPs data collection is going to be more valuable than Facebook or Google simply because they have everything and most importantly the ISPs can verify physical identities." Third prong: lawmakers advocating "closing the VPN loophole". Because terrorism.
gkya 9y ago
Would it be possible to connect to Internet w/o ISPs?

philipodonnell 9y ago

Probably worth pointing out that this already occurs now for very large companies who have to pay for upgraded uplink connections or data centers inside the networks (Netflix et al). Also part of why the bigger companies aren't pushing too hard, they have to pay this stuff under the current rules so new rules won't help them much.

extrapickles 9y ago
Some of the issue was that ISPs refused to upgrade their peering connections even when the other party offered to pay for both ends of the upgrade. They wanted to double dip, and anything short of that they refused.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Yes, and this is extremely corrosive to free market operation of the internet. Customers lose visibility into what sites cost (in time and money) because the cost of the deals that the ISP force onto companies are hidden on both sides of the transaction. Customers can't really make good market choices among sites or ISPs cleanly with these kinds of deals going on, so the market becomes much less efficient at delivering value to the economy.

theseatoms 9y ago

Consumer choice between ISPs solves most of these problems.

aaron_m04 9y ago
How do you propose to enable that?
- theseatoms 9y ago
  It's a hard problem that states and localities should sort out. High fixed costs, regional monopolies, etc. I get it. I'm just saying that almost this entire, complex discussion can be reduced to that crucial point.
- spc476 9y ago
  Hindsight is 20/20, but I suspect that the breakup of Ma Bell in 1984 should have been along service lines, not geographic lines. One company should have been given control of the physical wires, and that's all they do---they have have the right-of-ways to run cable and maintain the physical structure. And they have a mandate to provide service to any company that wants to provide a service (route data), and the other company provides the service, but they aren't in a monopolistic position. What's the natural monopoly here? The physical infrastructure. What isn't? The service---phone, television, data. Could this still be done? Yes, but I suspect the politics would be worse today than in 1984.