4 ms·

This is what happens when you're hiring a former lobbyist for the industry [1] Also, I think Net Neutrality was a bad name. I think many average Americans woul

This is what happens when you're hiring a former lobbyist for the industry [1] Also, I think Net Neutrality was a bad name. I think many average Americans wouldn't care about "Net Neutrality". I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. [1] http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-loyalist-seen-as-fcc-frontrunner/ http://business.time.com/2013/04/16/tom-wheeler-former-lobby...

sdrothrock 12y ago
> I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. I agree that the naming leaves something to be desired, but think it should have been the other way around. Rather than the status quo being "net neutrality," I wish the proposed changes had been labeled something like "Increased Internet Provider Penalties and Fees." Then it would be more clear that people want to change from what we have now to something that allows providers to penalize and charge people.
- Joeri 12y ago
  'Private Internet Tax'
- oscilloscope 12y ago
  I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available bandwidth. For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services: Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc. Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which is still available to them for email and general internet browsing. No extra penalties, no extra fees. That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't count against the advertised data they pay for. This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.
  - simoncion 12y ago
    > That's a great deal for the consumer... Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same. The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer telecommunications and Internet service "market".
    - greeneggs 12y ago
      I see your point, but I believe Hulu Plus has always had advertisements [0]. [0] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveils-subscription-service-for-9-99-a-month/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveil...
      - simoncion 12y ago
        I stand corrected (and walk a little funny, too). I should trust my memory less and re-verify my recollections more frequently.
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    Wat? For the consumer it's a short term benefit with horrible long term consequences. The effect would be that no one can start competing streaming services since this handful of services become significantly cheaper than the competition. So it extends the oligopoly of carriers to the streaming services? What you want as a consumer is your 40gb to use on any service you want, while not being ruined. If there is a decent selection of carriers then the pricing issue usually sorts itself. Making some data cheaper than other data is just not a way forward, unless you accept local monopolies among providers.
  - tobylane 12y ago
InclinedPlane 12y ago
A big problem is that a lot of people have been drawing parallels between "net neutrality" and the fcc's old "fairness doctrine". The fairness doctrine turned out to be a way to stifle undesired speech on the air, and a lot of people, especially conservatives, remember that and rightfully fear that sort of behavior. However, net neutrality is such an entirely different beast, the comparison is in no way apt. But the fear is still there, and when Obama is leading the charge it's easy for conservatives to view such things work a skeptical eye.
pessimizer 12y ago
Something like "Internet Freedom" would be vaguer, more deceptive, and easy to game. People against "Net Neutrality" (namely people who stand to profit), are at this second campaigning for freedom from regulation on the internet. They can claim (legitimately) that freedom for ISPs to behave as they please without government intervention is "Internet Freedom." They probably already are. edit: The fight for net neutrality is a fight for specific government regulation of internet providers to prevent them from discriminating between people. It is not a fight for internet freedom.

sdrothrock 12y ago

> I think something like "Internet Freedom" would have been a much stronger. I agree that the naming leaves something to be desired, but think it should have been the other way around. Rather than the status quo being "net neutrality," I wish the proposed changes had been labeled something like "Increased Internet Provider Penalties and Fees." Then it would be more clear that people want to change from what we have now to something that allows providers to penalize and charge people.

Joeri 12y ago
'Private Internet Tax'
oscilloscope 12y ago
I disagree that this is a better label. For a consumer, some violations of Net Neutrality might actually reduce monthly charges and increase their available bandwidth. For example, let's say T-Mobile's Music Freedom program (which uses packet inspection to whitelist Spotify, Pandora, and a few others so they don't count in data metering) expands to also encompass popular video streaming services: Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu, etc. Now a consumer could pay T-Mobile for an inexpensive plan, say $20 for 1 GB of data on a mobile device. They stream high-definition video and music every night, maybe using 40 GB of data this month. But they only pay for 1 GB, which is still available to them for email and general internet browsing. No extra penalties, no extra fees. That's a great deal for the consumer, since the majority of their bandwidth use is probably streaming media from these services. The free streaming is a value-add which encourages users to pay for streaming services, but it doesn't count against the advertised data they pay for. This clearly discriminates different kinds of traffic and provides preferential treatment to certain services. But it doesn't cause general internet services to be slower. Storing the media in hard drives near cell towers may cause the preferred media to be faster.
- simoncion 12y ago
  > That's a great deal for the consumer... Remember Hulu Plus? The deal there used to be that you paid the major "Content Providers" a monthly fee and in exchange, you got advertisement-free access to a small slice of their catalog. Shortly after people started paying for the service the advertisements crept in, but the monthly fee stayed the same. The truth of the matter is that today's great deal can be eliminated at a CRO's whim tomorrow. Moreover, "great deals" such as these throw substantial roadblocks in the way of non-favored players who which to participate in the marketplace. This substantially reduces competition, and substantially reduced competition has lead to the sorry state of the US's consumer telecommunications and Internet service "market".
  - greeneggs 12y ago
    I see your point, but I believe Hulu Plus has always had advertisements [0]. [0] http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveils-subscription-service-for-9-99-a-month/ http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/hulu-unveil...
    - simoncion 12y ago
      I stand corrected (and walk a little funny, too). I should trust my memory less and re-verify my recollections more frequently.
- alkonaut 12y ago
  Wat? For the consumer it's a short term benefit with horrible long term consequences. The effect would be that no one can start competing streaming services since this handful of services become significantly cheaper than the competition. So it extends the oligopoly of carriers to the streaming services? What you want as a consumer is your 40gb to use on any service you want, while not being ruined. If there is a decent selection of carriers then the pricing issue usually sorts itself. Making some data cheaper than other data is just not a way forward, unless you accept local monopolies among providers.
- tobylane 12y ago

InclinedPlane 12y ago

A big problem is that a lot of people have been drawing parallels between "net neutrality" and the fcc's old "fairness doctrine". The fairness doctrine turned out to be a way to stifle undesired speech on the air, and a lot of people, especially conservatives, remember that and rightfully fear that sort of behavior. However, net neutrality is such an entirely different beast, the comparison is in no way apt. But the fear is still there, and when Obama is leading the charge it's easy for conservatives to view such things work a skeptical eye.

pessimizer 12y ago

Something like "Internet Freedom" would be vaguer, more deceptive, and easy to game. People against "Net Neutrality" (namely people who stand to profit), are at this second campaigning for freedom from regulation on the internet. They can claim (legitimately) that freedom for ISPs to behave as they please without government intervention is "Internet Freedom." They probably already are. edit: The fight for net neutrality is a fight for specific government regulation of internet providers to prevent them from discriminating between people. It is not a fight for internet freedom.