6 ms·

The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. I

by bko 3y ago

The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken voluntarily unless it proves to be very harmful and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation.

Barrin92 3y ago
> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this very decision we're commenting on.
- bko 3y ago
  Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...
  - acdha 3y ago
    > invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.
    - bko 3y ago
      It's a precedent that government can tell ISPs and others what they can provide you. Once they have that in place, it's not a stretch to imagine them furthering that power for political purposes. Think about surveillance legislation after 9/11. None of it applied to domestic population originally
      - acdha 3y ago
        It’s the opposite of that - it’s saying companies cannot discriminate – but also that argument doesn’t make any sense because governments already do that and nothing in network neutrality legislation grants new powers. If they want to ban a political party’s website they’re passing new legislation (or ignoring laws) whether or not network neutrality laws exist.
ryukoposting 3y ago
> free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I can't comprehend why you think ISPs would feel compelled to be so altruistic without any government intervention. Except, since when was free wi-fi an impossible thing to find? Ever been to a coffee shop? Even in the "free shitty half-internet for everyone" pipe dream, the costs of such a service don't just magically disappear. Either way, someone's paying for that free internet, and it isn't the ISP. Telecoms likely didn't deploy anything because this was obviously going to get overruled by the next non-Trump FCC. Even Ajit Pai has a long record of advocating for modernizing the FCC, which would explicitly involve the regulation of internet services. Abolishing net neutrality is only universally popular among communities where the underlying philosophy is "government is bad, and I'm gonna prove it by running it badly."
- pyuser583 3y ago
  The internet, in it’s current non-net-neutral form, is very popular.
  - rixthefox 3y ago
    So the Internet before 2016 wasn’t popular because it had net neutrality? That’s definitely a new one. Is that you Pai?
- bko 3y ago
  > I can't comprehend why you think ISPs would feel compelled to be so altruistic without any government intervention. Price discrimination. No altruism necessary. Kind of like my isp offering me different speeds. Meta tried to offer free limited internet to poor rural Indians but idealistic tech workers from wealthy neighborhoods opposed it on moral grounds since it was against net neutrality so then they got no internet https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-india-rejected-facebooks-free-184404482.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-india-rejected-facebooks-...
  - ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
    So Facebook would have provided access where Facebook-owned properties were zero-rated, leading to Facebook distorting those people's view of the world. If you want to see what happens to countries where Facebook is essentially "the internet", look no further than Myanmar. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654
komali2 3y ago
I'd genuinely like to understand why you think corporations, whose success is measured by profit and basically nothing else, are more likely to do things that are good for people than governments, whose success is measured at least a little bit by the wellbeing of their constituents. I really want to better understand the thinking of people who hold opinions like yours.
- bko 3y ago
  It’s easier for me to switch which business I give my money to than it is for me to move or change governments. Most of the services I use are provided by private industry and I have choices. Everything from food, clothing, shelter. All private corporations I choose to buy from. I guess I can go get my food from a government soup kitchen or apply for government housing but my experience is these services are not competitive with private market even at the lower price (or free)
  - komali2 3y ago
    Interesting. Personally I believe people should have total freedom to change governments, but I'm a utopian thinker so /shrug though I wonder in such a world whether you'd feel the same way. "Too Like the Lightning" explored this if you enjoy sci-fi. I'm hung up on something though - in this specific subject, there's been massive market capture in the USA by one to four ISPs, depending on region. For most of rural america (something insane like 80% of the geography) there's only one provider. In these situations, the provider provides subpar service, often asking for handouts from the government before being willing to build more infrastructure (hm.. is that still "private?"). On the other hand, some local governments have simply built their own broadband networks, with far better results: https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map and they have some of the highest satisfaction ratings in the nation https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/telecom-services/best-and-worst-home-internet-providers-a2853390170/ https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/teleco... If the private market is better, why does Comcast, which routinely wins "worst company in america" awards, still exist, despite providing abysmal service to its customers? Surely a private enterprise could have eaten their lunch by now? If the private market is better, why are local governments providing the highest rated internet services in America? So basically, your feeling rests in the belief that you have more choice when it comes to private options - but in telecom, that doesn't seem to be the case, and of the options available, they're all widely considered to suck. Perhaps this isn't true for every industry, Stalin and Mao certainly showed us that it doesn't work for food, but does that mean the private option is better for everything we use? What does it mean to have a "private highway" system, or a "private fire department?"
throw10920 3y ago
> In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. You seem pretty pro-free-market, so here's the free-market angle: things like zero-rated Netflix on your mobile plan and free "basic" internet are market distortions. Companies are abusing the lack of net neutrality to engage in bundling, discounting, and collusion practices, which are bad for you as a consumer - these are anti-competitive practices! Everyone likes getting something for cheap/free, but that doesn't mean that it's actually good for you, other people, the market, or society as a whole. I agree that most of the bad things that net neutrality advocates predicted would happen wouldn't, but the things that did happen are still bad.
- bko 3y ago
  What's wrong with bundling or discounting? There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling. Zoom and slack unbundled video chat from places like Google workspace and similar software suites. A company like clickup tries to bundle all that stuff as a one stop shop (tagline is one app to replace them all) If anything more offers would increase competitiom as it's a bigger vector to make a sale.
  - xav0989 3y ago
    Another hypothetical: your isp zero rates the news sites with a given political leaning, but not yours. Reading the news that they want you to costs nothing, whereas reading the news that you want, or getting an alternative perspective on a story costs you something.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    > There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling This is pretty obviously wrong - you can sell things to make money, in a way that requires neither. Now, the problem with bundling itself is that it introduces market distortions. The way that free markets work is that producers make things, and then buyers buy the best thing based on its price and other factors. Bundling impedes this process because it means that consumers no longer buy the best goods based on their individual price and merits. Plus, bundling is usually used by monopolistic companies to anti-competitively extend their influence from one market to another, in a way that doesn't allow the market to work.

by bko 3y ago

Barrin92 3y ago

> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this very decision we're commenting on.

bko 3y ago
Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...
- acdha 3y ago
  > invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.
  - bko 3y ago
    It's a precedent that government can tell ISPs and others what they can provide you. Once they have that in place, it's not a stretch to imagine them furthering that power for political purposes. Think about surveillance legislation after 9/11. None of it applied to domestic population originally
    - acdha 3y ago
      It’s the opposite of that - it’s saying companies cannot discriminate – but also that argument doesn’t make any sense because governments already do that and nothing in network neutrality legislation grants new powers. If they want to ban a political party’s website they’re passing new legislation (or ignoring laws) whether or not network neutrality laws exist.

ryukoposting 3y ago

> free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I can't comprehend why you think ISPs would feel compelled to be so altruistic without any government intervention. Except, since when was free wi-fi an impossible thing to find? Ever been to a coffee shop? Even in the "free shitty half-internet for everyone" pipe dream, the costs of such a service don't just magically disappear. Either way, someone's paying for that free internet, and it isn't the ISP. Telecoms likely didn't deploy anything because this was obviously going to get overruled by the next non-Trump FCC. Even Ajit Pai has a long record of advocating for modernizing the FCC, which would explicitly involve the regulation of internet services. Abolishing net neutrality is only universally popular among communities where the underlying philosophy is "government is bad, and I'm gonna prove it by running it badly."

pyuser583 3y ago
The internet, in it’s current non-net-neutral form, is very popular.
- rixthefox 3y ago
  So the Internet before 2016 wasn’t popular because it had net neutrality? That’s definitely a new one. Is that you Pai?
bko 3y ago
> I can't comprehend why you think ISPs would feel compelled to be so altruistic without any government intervention. Price discrimination. No altruism necessary. Kind of like my isp offering me different speeds. Meta tried to offer free limited internet to poor rural Indians but idealistic tech workers from wealthy neighborhoods opposed it on moral grounds since it was against net neutrality so then they got no internet https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-india-rejected-facebooks-free-184404482.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-india-rejected-facebooks-...
- ThePowerOfFuet 3y ago
  So Facebook would have provided access where Facebook-owned properties were zero-rated, leading to Facebook distorting those people's view of the world. If you want to see what happens to countries where Facebook is essentially "the internet", look no further than Myanmar. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55929654

komali2 3y ago

I'd genuinely like to understand why you think corporations, whose success is measured by profit and basically nothing else, are more likely to do things that are good for people than governments, whose success is measured at least a little bit by the wellbeing of their constituents. I really want to better understand the thinking of people who hold opinions like yours.

bko 3y ago
It’s easier for me to switch which business I give my money to than it is for me to move or change governments. Most of the services I use are provided by private industry and I have choices. Everything from food, clothing, shelter. All private corporations I choose to buy from. I guess I can go get my food from a government soup kitchen or apply for government housing but my experience is these services are not competitive with private market even at the lower price (or free)
- komali2 3y ago
  Interesting. Personally I believe people should have total freedom to change governments, but I'm a utopian thinker so /shrug though I wonder in such a world whether you'd feel the same way. "Too Like the Lightning" explored this if you enjoy sci-fi. I'm hung up on something though - in this specific subject, there's been massive market capture in the USA by one to four ISPs, depending on region. For most of rural america (something insane like 80% of the geography) there's only one provider. In these situations, the provider provides subpar service, often asking for handouts from the government before being willing to build more infrastructure (hm.. is that still "private?"). On the other hand, some local governments have simply built their own broadband networks, with far better results: https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map https://communitynets.org/content/community-network-map and they have some of the highest satisfaction ratings in the nation https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/telecom-services/best-and-worst-home-internet-providers-a2853390170/ https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/teleco... If the private market is better, why does Comcast, which routinely wins "worst company in america" awards, still exist, despite providing abysmal service to its customers? Surely a private enterprise could have eaten their lunch by now? If the private market is better, why are local governments providing the highest rated internet services in America? So basically, your feeling rests in the belief that you have more choice when it comes to private options - but in telecom, that doesn't seem to be the case, and of the options available, they're all widely considered to suck. Perhaps this isn't true for every industry, Stalin and Mao certainly showed us that it doesn't work for food, but does that mean the private option is better for everything we use? What does it mean to have a "private highway" system, or a "private fire department?"

throw10920 3y ago

> In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. You seem pretty pro-free-market, so here's the free-market angle: things like zero-rated Netflix on your mobile plan and free "basic" internet are market distortions. Companies are abusing the lack of net neutrality to engage in bundling, discounting, and collusion practices, which are bad for you as a consumer - these are anti-competitive practices! Everyone likes getting something for cheap/free, but that doesn't mean that it's actually good for you, other people, the market, or society as a whole. I agree that most of the bad things that net neutrality advocates predicted would happen wouldn't, but the things that did happen are still bad.

bko 3y ago
What's wrong with bundling or discounting? There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling. Zoom and slack unbundled video chat from places like Google workspace and similar software suites. A company like clickup tries to bundle all that stuff as a one stop shop (tagline is one app to replace them all) If anything more offers would increase competitiom as it's a bigger vector to make a sale.
- xav0989 3y ago
  Another hypothetical: your isp zero rates the news sites with a given political leaning, but not yours. Reading the news that they want you to costs nothing, whereas reading the news that you want, or getting an alternative perspective on a story costs you something.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > There's two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling This is pretty obviously wrong - you can sell things to make money, in a way that requires neither. Now, the problem with bundling itself is that it introduces market distortions. The way that free markets work is that producers make things, and then buyers buy the best thing based on its price and other factors. Bundling impedes this process because it means that consumers no longer buy the best goods based on their individual price and merits. Plus, bundling is usually used by monopolistic companies to anti-competitively extend their influence from one market to another, in a way that doesn't allow the market to work.