6 ms·

I'm interested in whether one of the two extreme sides of this debate will admit they were wrong when their prediction doesn't pan out. Either we wind up with

I'm interested in whether one of the two extreme sides of this debate will admit they were wrong when their prediction doesn't pan out. Either we wind up with a tiered, cable package style internet or we don't. I'm in the "we won't" camp", but I'm also more disturbed by the monopolistic nature of ISP's that the regulations emboldened.

nsxwolf 8y ago
And what if we get tiered internet... and consumers like it? "All the websites I use for one low price? Wow!" Internet nerds assume the public at large shares their romantic ideals of the open web but that might not be true.
- rc_mob 8y ago
  Yeah the general public can be really stupid at times.
- bthrm 8y ago
  Count me in. I never watch HD video, which is a huge % of all the traffic of every ISP. I wish I could pay less money for an internet connection that was cheaper in exchange for not being able to watch HD video.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Do you really want a slower connection, or just a smaller data package? I'm ok with the latter - pay for what you use. The former, especially if it's bundled by content provider, worries me.
  - hexane360 8y ago
    You can already do this.
- zoul 8y ago
  This is already happening here in the Czech Republic with some of the mobile carriers. They exclude some websites or services from the mobile data limit, spinning it exactly as you said: as a service to the subscriber. Looks like an obvious neutrality violation to me, but the current EU legislation seems to be too weak to strike it down immediately. What’s worse, the media don’t seem to care.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    And we all know Czech is the trendsetter for all things technology.
    - zoul 8y ago
      What I meant was that (a) companies are already spinning this as an advancement for the consumers and (b) consumers seem to be happy about it so far.
- dmos62 8y ago
  Exactly, most internet consumers like that their internet experience is extremely centralized. For them it's an entertainment system and the more centralized it is the simpler and more fluid it is. Who cares that monopolized content delivery enables large scale surveillance and manipulation with dire socioeconomic consequences?
  - RyanZAG 8y ago
    Isn't that already the case though, regardless of net neutrality? Seems the large scale surveillance and manipulation will happen, whether it is legal or not.
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  I think that dystopian vision falls apart when you factor in porn, because that's the #1 use and no ISP is going to add a porn tier. People will flip their lid when they can't get to pornhub.
cavanasm 8y ago
I'd be shocked if things change immediately. Several states are implementing their own Net Neutrality regulations since FCC ceded regulatory authority on the issue, this looks like a transient situation that galvanizes further support for net neutrality to me. I don't think this is settled until Congress actually passes a law; considering how popular net neutrality regulations are, if Democrats win the House, it could happen in 2019 with bipartisan support in the Senate.
- moate 8y ago
  One counterpoint: 20-states have anti-municipal broadband legislation, because "reasons". I don't think we can really trust the states here to be looking out for the citizens.
dfxm12 8y ago
I agree. I don't think we're going to get tiered packages. It's not good PR. There's a lot more to these predictions though. I think what's going to happen is that that the ISP's that own media content (the big ones, Comcast, AT&T, Dish, etc.) are going to be able to bully out both ISP and digital streaming competition. Comcast isn't going to charge their customers more, they're going to charge Netflix more (to not throttle them). Netflix will have to raise prices, making Comcast's streaming service more attractive. This is going to lead to consolidation of media and Internet companies, with less competition in both. Startups will have a harder time to succeed.
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  Think about how many households subscribe to Netflix and/or Amazon. Imagine how John Q. Public can be persuaded to complain to his ISP when Netflix puts a big banner in the app that says "your internet provider is stopping us from streaming Thor Ragnarok in HD."
  - dfxm12 8y ago
    If ISP's weren't a near monopoly, complaining might actually accomplish something. Realistically, those complaints are just going to fall on deaf ears.
    - moate 8y ago
      "Hey, my service sucks and I'm not going to do business with you anymore! Cancel my service!" 5 minutes later "So I spoke with the 1 other ISP in my county, and they charge even more insane rates than you. Thank god the free market allowed me to pick you and your superior service! LONG LIVE THE FREE MARKET!" The fact of the matter is, there isn't enough competition in the sector for a free market approach to function. The government needs to go Bell Labs on the ISPs (and probably a few tech companies while we're at it).
- wooter 8y ago
  netflix came to be a multibillion dollar business without these laws. more likely, we'll get more consumer friendly options over diverse, specialized 'types' of ISPs, thanks to caching, as we have seen like free music streaming on t-mobile or free netflix on flights. or more vital/cool things like guaranteed rates for remote medical monitoring through partnerships
fenomas 8y ago
> Either we wind up with a tiered, cable package style internet or we don't. I don't follow this closely, but is this really the "against" position? I thought the premise was less that ISPs would offer tiered packages to the consumer, and more that ISPs would do deals with content companies, such that the consumer just sees slower speeds to sites that didn't pay up (and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP (hah!)).
- fortythirteen 8y ago
  > and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. In fact NetNeutrality™ put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitors.
  - bkor 8y ago
    > In fact NetNeutrality put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitor Could you please show how Net Neutrality was an expensive regulatory process. And then also show how it priced out small ISPs? Lastly, how is Net Neutrality as a concept a trademark? Without above it comes over as an opinion, not fact.
    - fortythirteen 8y ago
      Look at TechCruch's[0] weak argument against this (#4). They even have have to admit that it "potentially" does hinder competition, but claim temporary exemptions negate this. They use a single small ISP from SF (which has more resources than any other town in the world) as an example of it not being an issue. You may not agree with either conclusion, but you must admit that it is the most weakly dismissed argument against added regulations. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-ag...
  - fenomas 8y ago
    > And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. The post you're replying to didn't suggest it does. Please don't do that thing people do where they pick out some random bit of a post to reply to as a hook to make an unrelated argument for the side they prefer.
mcguire 8y ago
Tiered packages are not the issue. Three issue is that service providers and large incumbent internet content providers will be in a position to block smaller competitors from access to customers.

nsxwolf 8y ago

And what if we get tiered internet... and consumers like it? "All the websites I use for one low price? Wow!" Internet nerds assume the public at large shares their romantic ideals of the open web but that might not be true.

rc_mob 8y ago
Yeah the general public can be really stupid at times.
bthrm 8y ago
Count me in. I never watch HD video, which is a huge % of all the traffic of every ISP. I wish I could pay less money for an internet connection that was cheaper in exchange for not being able to watch HD video.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Do you really want a slower connection, or just a smaller data package? I'm ok with the latter - pay for what you use. The former, especially if it's bundled by content provider, worries me.
- hexane360 8y ago
  You can already do this.
zoul 8y ago
This is already happening here in the Czech Republic with some of the mobile carriers. They exclude some websites or services from the mobile data limit, spinning it exactly as you said: as a service to the subscriber. Looks like an obvious neutrality violation to me, but the current EU legislation seems to be too weak to strike it down immediately. What’s worse, the media don’t seem to care.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  And we all know Czech is the trendsetter for all things technology.
  - zoul 8y ago
    What I meant was that (a) companies are already spinning this as an advancement for the consumers and (b) consumers seem to be happy about it so far.
dmos62 8y ago
Exactly, most internet consumers like that their internet experience is extremely centralized. For them it's an entertainment system and the more centralized it is the simpler and more fluid it is. Who cares that monopolized content delivery enables large scale surveillance and manipulation with dire socioeconomic consequences?
- RyanZAG 8y ago
  Isn't that already the case though, regardless of net neutrality? Seems the large scale surveillance and manipulation will happen, whether it is legal or not.
fortythirteen 8y ago
I think that dystopian vision falls apart when you factor in porn, because that's the #1 use and no ISP is going to add a porn tier. People will flip their lid when they can't get to pornhub.

cavanasm 8y ago

I'd be shocked if things change immediately. Several states are implementing their own Net Neutrality regulations since FCC ceded regulatory authority on the issue, this looks like a transient situation that galvanizes further support for net neutrality to me. I don't think this is settled until Congress actually passes a law; considering how popular net neutrality regulations are, if Democrats win the House, it could happen in 2019 with bipartisan support in the Senate.

moate 8y ago
One counterpoint: 20-states have anti-municipal broadband legislation, because "reasons". I don't think we can really trust the states here to be looking out for the citizens.

dfxm12 8y ago

I agree. I don't think we're going to get tiered packages. It's not good PR. There's a lot more to these predictions though. I think what's going to happen is that that the ISP's that own media content (the big ones, Comcast, AT&T, Dish, etc.) are going to be able to bully out both ISP and digital streaming competition. Comcast isn't going to charge their customers more, they're going to charge Netflix more (to not throttle them). Netflix will have to raise prices, making Comcast's streaming service more attractive. This is going to lead to consolidation of media and Internet companies, with less competition in both. Startups will have a harder time to succeed.

fortythirteen 8y ago
Think about how many households subscribe to Netflix and/or Amazon. Imagine how John Q. Public can be persuaded to complain to his ISP when Netflix puts a big banner in the app that says "your internet provider is stopping us from streaming Thor Ragnarok in HD."
- dfxm12 8y ago
  If ISP's weren't a near monopoly, complaining might actually accomplish something. Realistically, those complaints are just going to fall on deaf ears.
  - moate 8y ago
    "Hey, my service sucks and I'm not going to do business with you anymore! Cancel my service!" 5 minutes later "So I spoke with the 1 other ISP in my county, and they charge even more insane rates than you. Thank god the free market allowed me to pick you and your superior service! LONG LIVE THE FREE MARKET!" The fact of the matter is, there isn't enough competition in the sector for a free market approach to function. The government needs to go Bell Labs on the ISPs (and probably a few tech companies while we're at it).
wooter 8y ago
netflix came to be a multibillion dollar business without these laws. more likely, we'll get more consumer friendly options over diverse, specialized 'types' of ISPs, thanks to caching, as we have seen like free music streaming on t-mobile or free netflix on flights. or more vital/cool things like guaranteed rates for remote medical monitoring through partnerships

fenomas 8y ago

> Either we wind up with a tiered, cable package style internet or we don't. I don't follow this closely, but is this really the "against" position? I thought the premise was less that ISPs would offer tiered packages to the consumer, and more that ISPs would do deals with content companies, such that the consumer just sees slower speeds to sites that didn't pay up (and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP (hah!)).

fortythirteen 8y ago
> and has no say in the matter apart from finding a new ISP And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. In fact NetNeutrality™ put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitors.
- bkor 8y ago
  > In fact NetNeutrality put in place an expensive regulatory process that often priced out small competitor Could you please show how Net Neutrality was an expensive regulatory process. And then also show how it priced out small ISPs? Lastly, how is Net Neutrality as a concept a trademark? Without above it comes over as an opinion, not fact.
  - fortythirteen 8y ago
    Look at TechCruch's[0] weak argument against this (#4). They even have have to admit that it "potentially" does hinder competition, but claim temporary exemptions negate this. They use a single small ISP from SF (which has more resources than any other town in the world) as an example of it not being an issue. You may not agree with either conclusion, but you must admit that it is the most weakly dismissed argument against added regulations. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/?guccounter=1 https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-ag...
- fenomas 8y ago
  > And that has nothing to do with NetNeutrality™. The post you're replying to didn't suggest it does. Please don't do that thing people do where they pick out some random bit of a post to reply to as a hook to make an unrelated argument for the side they prefer.

mcguire 8y ago

Tiered packages are not the issue. Three issue is that service providers and large incumbent internet content providers will be in a position to block smaller competitors from access to customers.