Anti-net neutrality and online classes - please explain?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Background is this thread from the General Ed board. http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/665567-wow-lone-pine-latin-is-closing-anyone-know-the-scoop/

 

I have such a hard time understanding the whole issue. Politically, the people with whom I usually agree have explained that net neutrality is pretty important, and I do understand on some big picture levels, but what I do NOT understand is

 

1. how recent changes might affect homeschoolers taking online classes, and

2. how it might affect ME if I start teaching music lessons online.

 

Any help? Please type slowly and use small words. 

[eternalsummer]

That's insane, I'm sorry, just insane.  They were open before net neutrality, weren't they?  Glad we went with Lukeion.

[goldberry]

Here's an article that might help you understand some of the possible implications, but to my knowledge at this point they are only that: concerns and possibilities, none of which have actually come to fruition yet. Remember, the internet in its present form existed and came to exist BEFORE there was any such thing as net neutrality. Most of the objections, to my knowledge, have been over conjecture and not actuality. Net neutrality didn't cure anything. But it did put certain safeguards in place. However it also made companies pull back on infrastructure investment. I'm not taking a side on either way, but it was a double edged sword, and it is definitely not a black and white issue once you delve into it. 

 

Net neutrality was only named as such in legislation fairly recently, but if you look at the legal challenges that have occurred since the internet started growing, judgments were made that were in line with net neutrality as a principle.  The government and the courts made judgments that protected the rights of the consumer to access content of their choice without the provider determining which content was favored.  That concept, that the consumer has that right and not the provider, is what was killed by killing net neutrality.

 

I wanted to state this plainly, because I have seen some comments that were in favor of killing net neutrality that pretty much state the exact opposite of what it really was.  Someone I know favored killing it "because the government shouldn't get to tell me what content I can access".  No.  That is not what was happening.  By killing net neutrality, the government is allowing big business to tell you what content you can access (or at least access at any decent speed, or even for free,  which let's face it will be a factor for most people.) 

 

I'm on a crap computer right now, but I will find some of the cases prior to this that were actuality and not conjecture.

 

[goldberry]

Regarding the OP, that sounds bogus to me.  I don't think there is anything regarding the net neutrality changes that would affect that situation at all.

[MorningGlory]

I'd concentrate on building an awesome business and hoping some bigger company likes your platform, swoops in and buys you out for several million. 

 

Now we're talking!

 

Tibbie...I'm not worried about it at all. I cannot see how NN would affect my business in any way...but I am a "head in the sand" type of person so maybe I'm ignoring information I should be paying attention to. Regardless, I'm just going to keep on doing what I'm doing until I can't or don't want to anymore. Then I'll do something else! :-)

[Matryoshka]

Yoikes, I'm seeing all kinds of confusion here! (although I will say it has nothing to do with the person who's giving up her online class - as nothing has taken effect yet, so it seems like a bogus excuse).  But it seems like some people think NN just got passed (not repealed) and that it could be bad.

 

Net neutrality is GOOD.  It's what we've always had.  They just voted to take it AWAY.

 

For an analogy, let's use roads and cars.  Roads got built, you get to drive your car anywhere on any road.  You can use the highway if it gets you there faster, no tolls, no restrictions.  That's 'net neutrality'.  It always was the way the internet worked, but some providers were building faster 'highways' and wanted to put up tolls, and put restrictions on who could drive on them.  So 'net neutrality' was passed to say they didn't get to do that.  It wasn't a change, it said, providers can't restrict speed or charge you for getting to websites that weren't 'preferred' by them.

 

So, now they're REPEALING that.  So, you want to get on the highway, you have to pay extra toll, or you have to go backroads really slow.  If you're Walmart, you pay the guy with the road extra, and people get to drive on the highway to get to your store, but all the little stores are only available via backroads.  Or not at all.  And you will be paying extra on your end to use the highway at all - they'll be able to get paid extra on both ends - from the guy with the store and the people who want to use their car to get there.

 

There's another possible aspect of this that a post on FB brought up that I hadn't even thought of - I'll paste it here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208157390690780&set=a.4258544280129.1073741827.1781566363&type=3

 

To sum up: It could easily be that without net neutrality the internet could become more like cable with bundled packages.  So, if your website isn't in the package, good luck.  That goes even beyond speed and convenience.

 

Again, none of this has taken effect yet, and I believe there are a ton of lawsuits trying to block the repeal, so the person who canceled her online classes is totally making up an excuse.  But everyone that uses the internet should care about this.  What if the WTM site is suddenly 10x slower, or heaven forbid, not part of the bundled package?   :eek:

[Carrie12345]

Considering I’ve already had issues getting my provider to “allow†me to use “enough†internet each month WITH NN, and pay through the nose with a required business ID# for the privilege, there may be more people, without NN, who aren’t allowed to use as much internet as they’d need for online classes.

 

Pardon mixed verbs.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Carrie12345

[CadenceSophia]

I think people are misunderstanding how the internet works. It's your own ISP that goes and gets the data you want and fetches it back to you so in a hypothetical non-neutral net that suddenly deliberately slowed down the WTM for you, you would be wanting to go get a new ISP. What people really want isn't net neutrality (directly) it is competition for high speed internet providers. The real risk stems from not having choices available in different areas so if say, the only ISP in Alabama decides to only offer "services" similar to what is offered in China, the people in Alabama would have that or nothing. Old monopoly type contracts that exist from the time phone lines were being put in have prevented competition. I really think the net neutrality stuff is supposed to be a distraction so we don't notice that those big companies are maintaining their monopolies.

I don't support net neutrality and I don't think most people would support it if they really understood what happens when you try to use the internet. I guess unless you really like totally useless laws that regulate the type of contract that two consenting parties can arrange related to content viewing.

Edited December 27, 2017 by CadenceSophia

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Sincere thanks to each poster!

 

So basically my big picture is working for me: Speed and access will be a problem, but it's not really true that anybody has to shut down their business yet.

 

As far as 10x slower and too expensive, I'm with Carrie12345 - I'm already one of the people whose net access never can keep up, no matter how much we spend or which provider we try. I would not be surprised if people in my community are eventually affected.

 

For my business, I've already pretty much decided not to teach online (except for a few students I took on before deciding that), so my sites, including social media, will be for exposure, contact for gigs and lessons, and sales (instruction books and sheet music). I don't have the capability to stream lessons even now, it's all too slow.

[ktgrok]

I don't support net neutrality and I don't think most people would support it if they really understood what happens when you try to use the internet. 

 

Well, my network engineer husband and all his network engineer friends all support net neutrality. I'm pretty sure they understand how the internet works. 

[eternalsummer]

Well, my network engineer husband and all his network engineer friends all support net neutrality. I'm pretty sure they understand how the internet works. 

 

She's not talking about an engineering understanding, or an understanding of how the internet physically works, but a business understanding.  That is to say, right now net neutrality rules make sense and are important because many places only have one or maaaybe two providers, and so regulating what those providers can do keeps them from abusing their monopoly.  the alternative is to allow and encourage competition, so that instead of the government regulating what internet providers can do, customers regulate it through free market pressure.

[goldberry]

Can you clarify a little more? I think I follow what you're saying, but I'm a little unclear on how the repeal would change how the courts are currently ruling in favor of the consumer, even prior to the NN addition a few years ago? Just trying to understand myself. My dh is over IT for a multinational corporation and they aren't even a little concerned over this whole thing as far as their bottom line, but they clearly aren't small business, so hearing about it from different angle is good. 

 

As early as 2004, the FCC adopted four principles of an open internet:  

1. Freedom to access content.
2. Freedom to run applications.
3. Freedom to attach devices.
4. Freedom to obtain service plan information

These were adopted as policy in 2005.  They were not very specific, which makes sense because things change so much.  So of course companies were trying to push the boundaries.  But often when these cases went to the FCC, they resulted in a ruling favorable for the consumer.

 

2005:

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

 

2008:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93194962

 

2009:

http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

 

2010:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2011:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.cafd9cd09c10

 

There are more.  That's why I consider the claim that the problem is hypothetical to not be valid.  Companies have been trying to control and throttle content from the very beginning and have been (barely) held in check.

 

In 2010, the Comcast case got overturned on appeal. The problem was whether or not the FCC had jurisdiction to regulate this sort of thing.  In 2014 another ruling got struck down for this same issue.  That's why in 2015 the FCC reclassified broadband providers as common carriers to provide jurisdiction.

 

So net neutrality did not just start in 2015.  We had the principle of net neutrality long before then.  We had the FCC at least trying to keep in check the efforts of big business to control and throttle content.  What we have done now is kill the very principle that consumers deserve a free and open internet with equal opportunity to access all content.  None of those cases I listed, plus many others, would be able to be prosecuted now.  It is not hypothetical or conjecture.  

[forty-two]

Wrt places only having one or two ISPs and net neutrality:

 

My understanding is that we've always had de facto net neutrality, until the recent law passed, yes? And my experience has been that back in the day, there were a *lot* of little ISPs, but between the mid-90s and now, that has changed, and now there are (per my dh) only about six major ISPs.

 

And wrt effect net neutrality debates, the ISP powers-that-be were largely in favor of *repealing* net neutrality, yes? And the arguments in favor of keeping net neutrality were that it would provide some degree of protection for us little-guy-consumers from the whims of the ISP powers-that-be, yes? Namely, that net neutrality means that ISPs aren't allowed to privilege or hamper access to anything on the net; also, the providers/maintainers of the Internet infrastructure cannot privilege or hamper access to anyone who wants to use them. And part of the monopoly issue is that the major ISPs are also the major providers/maintainers of the Internet infrastructure, yes?

 

I do see that having net neutrality didn't *prevent* the monopolies. But one issue I have with the "repeal net neutrality to encourage competition" argument is that, as I understand it, the monopolies are in *favor* of repealing net neutrality. Why would they be in favor of something that would *hurt* their monopoly?

 

Also, I don't really understand how repealing net neutrality is supposed to *help* encourage effective competition? What barrier to entry is lowered by repealing net neutrality?

 

 

Idk, sometimes it feels to me like the keep and repeal net neutrality sides are talking about completely different things - I haven't been able to get any sense of a unified big picture. I don't feel like I understand the trade-offs between keep and repeal, because I can't figure out how the keep arguments fit into the universe described by the repeal advocates, nor how the repeal arguments fit into the universe described by the keep advocates. It's like two totally different aspects of reality and I can't figure out how to put them together. It's really been frustrating me.

[goldberry]

I think people are misunderstanding how the internet works. It's your own ISP that goes and gets the data you want and fetches it back to you so in a hypothetical non-neutral net that suddenly deliberately slowed down the WTM for you, you would be wanting to go get a new ISP. What people really want isn't net neutrality (directly) it is competition for high speed internet providers. The real risk stems from not having choices available in different areas so if say, the only ISP in Alabama decides to only offer "services" similar to what is offered in China, the people in Alabama would have that or nothing. Old monopoly type contracts that exist from the time phone lines were being put in have prevented competition. I really think the net neutrality stuff is supposed to be a distraction so we don't notice that those big companies are maintaining their monopolies.

I don't support net neutrality and I don't think most people would support it if they really understood what happens when you try to use the internet. I guess unless you really like totally useless laws that regulate the type of contract that two consenting parties can arrange related to content viewing.

 

I think you are mistaken that this would be the problem, as well as underestimating the power of money.

 

Internet providers are now free to accept money from companies who want to pay to get their information put on on the fastest service.  WTM will NEVER have the money to do that, neither will literally millions of other small business, blogs, alternative news sources, etc.   There will not be another ISP to switch to, because why would such an ISP offer WTM at faster speeds when WTM has no money to give to them?   The companies with the money to pay will always control the market.   And if it's not money, what if it's ideology?  ISPs with certain beliefs can throttle or block content they simply disagree with.  Don't we have enough bubbles already?  

 

Two consenting parties.... how much consent is there when today we pretty much HAVE to have the internet, and the ISPs and big business can control what content we are able to easily access?  Voting with your dollar is a nice concept, but not very realistic.  How many of us have the funds to pay more for internet just to get better WTM access (WTM just a representative example of course), even if we wanted to, and even if such an ISP were available?  I know a ton of people who disagree with Walmart's policies and ideologies.  They still shop there.  Because they're blazing hypocrites?  No.  Because limited funds are a reality and people have to make the best choices for their families. 

 

I will say I agree 100% that monopolies are a huge problem.  I just don't think it is the core problem of net neutrality, or even necessarily related.  I think we will always have multiple internet providers.  I just think the top dollar will rule them all, and our individual opinions or preferences or beliefs won't matter doodly without someone bigger than us to fight it.

[Sandwalker]

As early as 2004, the FCC adopted four principles of an open internet:

• Freedom to access content.
• Freedom to run applications.
• Freedom to attach devices.
• Freedom to obtain service plan information

These were adopted as policy in 2005. They were not very specific, which makes sense because things change so much. So of course companies were trying to push the boundaries. But often when these cases went to the FCC, they resulted in a ruling favorable for the consumer.

 

2005:

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

 

2008:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93194962

 

2009:

http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

 

2010:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2011:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.cafd9cd09c10

 

There are more. That's why I consider the claim that the problem is hypothetical to not be valid. Companies have been trying to control and throttle content from the very beginning and have been (barely) held in check.

 

In 2010, the Comcast case got overturned on appeal. The problem was whether or not the FCC had jurisdiction to regulate this sort of thing. In 2014 another ruling got struck down for this same issue. That's why in 2015 the FCC reclassified broadband providers as common carriers to provide jurisdiction.

 

So net neutrality did not just start in 2015. We had the principle of net neutrality long before then. We had the FCC at least trying to keep in check the efforts of big business to control and throttle content. What we have done now is kill the very principle that consumers deserve a free and open internet with equal opportunity to access all content. None of those cases I listed, plus many others, would be able to be prosecuted now. It is not hypothetical or conjecture.

^

[CadenceSophia]

I think you are mistaken that this would be the problem, as well as underestimating the power of money.

 

Internet providers are now free to accept money from companies who want to pay to get their information put on on the fastest service. WTM will NEVER have the money to do that, neither will literally millions of other small business, blogs, alternative news sources, etc. There will not be another ISP to switch to, because why would such an ISP offer WTM at faster speeds when WTM has no money to give to them? The companies with the money to pay will always control the market. And if it's not money, what if it's ideology? ISPs with certain beliefs can throttle or block content they simply disagree with. Don't we have enough bubbles already?

 

Two consenting parties.... how much consent is there when today we pretty much HAVE to have the internet, and the ISPs and big business can control what content we are able to easily access? Voting with your dollar is a nice concept, but not very realistic. How many of us have the funds to pay more for internet just to get better WTM access (WTM just a representative example of course), even if we wanted to, and even if such an ISP were available? I know a ton of people who disagree with Walmart's policies and ideologies. They still shop there. Because they're blazing hypocrites? No. Because limited funds are a reality and people have to make the best choices for their families.

 

I will say I agree 100% that monopolies are a huge problem. I just don't think it is the core problem of net neutrality, or even necessarily related. I think we will always have multiple internet providers. I just think the top dollar will rule them all, and our individual opinions or preferences or beliefs won't matter doodly without someone bigger than us to fight it.

Right, when you have 1 or 2 choices for internet, you are basically powerless. Repealing or maintaining the net neutrality laws does absolutely nothing for breaking down monopolies and giving you more power or choice. That's why I see a problem with the whole argument -- it's like a straw man argument from both sides when what we really want is competition -- real legitimate competition and the monopolies over infrastructure broken down.

 

The reason I don't support the law is not because I'm super happy that we have such large and benevolent monopolies in control of our internet access, but that it a) does nothing to give you better prices, more free internet, more choice etc and b) restricts the free market preventing potential interesting advancements.

 

Imagine some day Google decided to make a device that had completely free internet access globally as long as you started your search with the suit of Google tools & were potentially limited in some way with the results. That would be illegal with net neutrality laws but could be awesome for many people. If you hate Google, no one would be forcing you to opt for it.

I know many people here are not pro- capitalism or think they are not, but capitalism really is making the intent cheaper and awesomer and I personally don't like seeing laws that are just clutter.

[goldberry]

Imagine some day Google decided to make a device that had completely free internet access globally as long as you started your search with the suit of Google tools & were potentially limited in some way with the results. That would be illegal with net neutrality laws but could be awesome for many people. If you hate Google, no one would be forcing you to opt for it.

 

Hmm... so what if Google was run by an unapologetic communist (or hard core conservative or pro-gay rights or anti-choice or fill-in-the blank)?  And you were limited to results that only supported Google's viewpoint?  And it was all great that everyone got it for free, as long as they only got those results. Or maybe even other results were THERE, you just had to go to page 1097 to get to them, and the speed was slow.   

 

But hey, all the poor people who need internet, they don't really care that much, it's free and they need it.  And then, even schools would start using it, because why not?  There would be some set of parents complaining, but there are always some complaining, and wouldn't that just be good use of funds?  Financial sense?  How long would it really take before a bubble like that would affect people?  It's even more insidious because you have a whole group of people who think they wouldn't be affected, so why shouldn't I just take advantage of free internet?  Except that science has proven that YES, we are all affected by the information we take in within our bubbles. 

 

Think about it.  It would be illegal because it is wrong.  The potential for abuse is every bit as large as if the government controlled the internet content.  At least the government we can vote on.  Big money we can't do squat if we don't have money ourselves.  

[ktgrok]

Right, when you have 1 or 2 choices for internet, you are basically powerless. Repealing or maintaining the net neutrality laws does absolutely nothing for breaking down monopolies and giving you more power or choice. That's why I see a problem with the whole argument -- it's like a straw man argument from both sides when what we really want is competition -- real legitimate competition and the monopolies over infrastructure broken down.

 

The reason I don't support the law is not because I'm super happy that we have such large and benevolent monopolies in control of our internet access, but that it a) does nothing to give you better prices, more free internet, more choice etc and b) restricts the free market preventing potential interesting advancements.

 

Imagine some day Google decided to make a device that had completely free internet access globally as long as you started your search with the suit of Google tools & were potentially limited in some way with the results. That would be illegal with net neutrality laws but could be awesome for many people. If you hate Google, no one would be forcing you to opt for it.

I know many people here are not pro- capitalism or think they are not, but capitalism really is making the intent cheaper and awesomer and I personally don't like seeing laws that are just clutter.

 

No, competition is not all I want. It is possible that I could have 10 companies to choose from and they might all be throttling the internet in various ways I don't agree with. I mean yeah, I'd like more competition, but I also want net neutrality. And repealing net neutrality won't get me more competition. 

[goldberry]

Speaking of encouraging competition, in 2011...

 

Verizon Blocks Google Wallet

Just months after it got busted blocking applications in the Android Market, Verizon Wireless confirmed it is restricting consumers’ ability to download and use Google Wallet — the search giant’s new mobile payment app — on the new flagship Galaxy Nexus phone.

By so casually abusing its gatekeeper position to block applications that compete with its own offerings, Verizon’s move sent a message to all entrepreneurs and developers: If you come up with an interesting, disruptive new application, Verizon just may block it and promote its own version instead.

 

This is all part of the same kit and kaboodle.  The potential for abuse is mind boggling.  Oh, did I mention Verizon is the only carrier in my rural area with decent coverage?  I'm unlikely to be able to make a political statement by changing cell phone companies.

Edited December 28, 2017 by goldberry

[CadenceSophia]

Hmm... so what if Google was run by an unapologetic communist (or hard core conservative or pro-gay rights or anti-choice or fill-in-the blank)? And you were limited to results that only supported Google's viewpoint? And it was all great that everyone got it for free, as long as they only got those results. Or maybe even other results were THERE, you just had to go to page 1097 to get to them, and the speed was slow.

 

But hey, all the poor people who need internet, they don't really care that much, it's free and they need it. And then, even schools would start using it, because why not? There would be some set of parents complaining, but there are always some complaining, and wouldn't that just be good use of funds? Financial sense? How long would it really take before a bubble like that would affect people? It's even more insidious because you have a whole group of people who think they wouldn't be affected, so why shouldn't I just take advantage of free internet? Except that science has proven that YES, we are all affected by the information we take in within our bubbles.

 

Think about it. It would be illegal because it is wrong. The potential for abuse is every bit as large as if the government controlled the internet content. At least the government we can vote on. Big money we can't do squat if we don't have money ourselves.

Am I understanding correctly that we should make this law to prevent an immoral company from giving away something for free, which otherwise wouldn't affect the course of business except that it's tempting to poor people?

 

My personal views don't include a desire to legislate away that possibility. Actually LOTS of things that offend my personal view point are offered free.. like large portions of the public education system. I'd sooner get on board with laws to prevent strip clubs from offering free chicken wings. (But.. I wouldn't actually) There are a lot of parallels there.

 

If that's your view, I respect your right to it, but I just don't share it. I understand that "voting with your dollar" doessn't produce results as quickly as people would always like, but I have a fairly strong confidence in a minimally regulated free market. It doesn't offend me if you don't feel that way.

[Corraleno]

The idea that repealing net neutrality will lead to more competition and more choices is beyond absurd. In fact, it's pure propaganda. Let's let megacorporations raise prices and cut services for poor people and small businesses, in ways that further advantage the wealthy and large corporations, and then new businesses will pop up to provide cheap, fast internet to everyone who gets shafted by the giant ISPs! Does anyone actually believe that???

 

The idea that for-profit corporations should be allowed to limit and control exactly what information consumers can see, in a way that is totally opaque to the consumer, is truly frightening. I understand why the monopolies would think this was an awesome idea. I understand why certain politicians would think it was an awesome idea. What I don't understand is why any consumer would voluntarily choose to have their internet access controlled by corporations in ways that greatly benefit the corporations while disadvantaging the consumers. There is simply no up-side in this for consumers.

[Mergath]

Right, when you have 1 or 2 choices for internet, you are basically powerless. Repealing or maintaining the net neutrality laws does absolutely nothing for breaking down monopolies and giving you more power or choice. That's why I see a problem with the whole argument -- it's like a straw man argument from both sides when what we really want is competition -- real legitimate competition and the monopolies over infrastructure broken down.

 

The reason I don't support the law is not because I'm super happy that we have such large and benevolent monopolies in control of our internet access, but that it a) does nothing to give you better prices, more free internet, more choice etc and b) restricts the free market preventing potential interesting advancements.

 

Imagine some day Google decided to make a device that had completely free internet access globally as long as you started your search with the suit of Google tools & were potentially limited in some way with the results. That would be illegal with net neutrality laws but could be awesome for many people. If you hate Google, no one would be forcing you to opt for it.

I know many people here are not pro- capitalism or think they are not, but capitalism really is making the intent cheaper and awesomer and I personally don't like seeing laws that are just clutter.

You keep implying that those who disagree with you do so because we don't understand how the internet works, or we *think* we aren't pro-capitalism, and so on.

 

Many of the people around here are pretty smart. I don't think you're going to get very far by insisting that we just don't know any better.

[CadenceSophia]

You keep implying that those who disagree with you do so because we don't understand how the internet works, or we *think* we aren't pro-capitalism, and so on.

 

Many of the people around here are pretty smart. I don't think you're going to get very far by insisting that we just don't know any better.

Did you read my last post? Pretty sure that's not what I said. But hey if you want to go with "were really smart so we've considered all angles and reject all other opinions" be my guest. I'm really not trying to "get far" with you.

[CadenceSophia]

The idea that repealing net neutrality will lead to more competition and more choices is beyond absurd. In fact, it's pure propaganda.

No one said this. You are conflating two separate situations. What I said was that I am opposed to net neutrality legislation as it has been discussed for one set of reasons, and that I believe that on a national scale we are being distracted by this net neutrality "discussion" when what "we" (in a general sense, clearly not anyone in this thread) need to keep a neutral and free internet in a real sense is a competitive market and the breaking down of monopolies.

 

We have had a neutral internet all this time without net neutrality laws. Nothing has actually happened legally speaking. People are getting whipped up into a frenzy over what basically amounts to nothing at this exact moment. Everyone is up in arms demanding a new law (and ready to chew someones head off for not being in favor of it). No one is up in arms demanding free (er?) access to internet providers.

[Carrie12345]

 

I do see that having net neutrality didn't *prevent* the monopolies. But one issue I have with the "repeal net neutrality to encourage competition" argument is that, as I understand it, the monopolies are in *favor* of repealing net neutrality. Why would they be in favor of something that would *hurt* their monopoly?

 

Also, I don't really understand how repealing net neutrality is supposed to *help* encourage effective competition? What barrier to entry is lowered by repealing net neutrality?

 

 

 

 

In my location, I think the (near) monopoly is working for the company, because there are enough people who will pay when they receive their letter saying (paraphrased) "You use too much for us.  Use less or we'll disconnect you.  Or get a more expensive account from ____."  Blank is the big provider that provides the small provider with their less expensive service.

 

However, the big provider is now requiring business ID#s for the commercial service.  They've just started phasing that in.  I happen to direct a non-profit, so I already had a number.  People who don't have any sort of business and aren't aware of how easy it can be to get one may very well be stuck in the position of having to "use less" or lose service all together, even if they can budget for the more expensive service.

 

It seems very logical to me that these providers may, if allowed, decide to expand on their two "residential" and "commercial" services and chop it up into plans reminiscent of old school cell phone data plans.  Per minute/hour/byte/whatever.  I don't understand the economic end of that, either.  It's merely my gut feeling after dealing with these two companies for the past few years and trying to understand all of the BS letters they've sent me.

[Joules]

We have had a neutral internet all this time without net neutrality laws.

We had net neutrality for a long time without laws, because everyone believed in a free and open internet, and the courts upheld that premise. If you check out all the lawsuits, you will see that net neutrality was “enforced†by the courts before it was law, again, because everyone thought it was the right thing. Companies pushed the boundaries more and more at the expensive of citizens, so it was clear that what everyone thought was the right thing needed to be codified.

 

A simplistic and drastic analogy is a utopia where murder isn’t against the law because, well, everyone knows it’s wrong and no one does it. Then people start killing to speed up their inheritance or eliminate the competition, and the government decides to make a law.

 

Yes, we had net neutrality all this time, but when it was threatened, it was time to make a law.

[Sandwalker]

The idea that repealing net neutrality will lead to more competition and more choices is beyond absurd. In fact, it's pure propaganda. Let's let megacorporations raise prices and cut services for poor people and small businesses, in ways that further advantage the wealthy and large corporations, and then new businesses will pop up to provide cheap, fast internet to everyone who gets shafted by the giant ISPs! Does anyone actually believe that???

 

The idea that for-profit corporations should be allowed to limit and control exactly what information consumers can see, in a way that is totally opaque to the consumer, is truly frightening. I understand why the monopolies would think this was an awesome idea. I understand why certain politicians would think it was an awesome idea. What I don't understand is why any consumer would voluntarily choose to have their internet access controlled by corporations in ways that greatly benefit the corporations while disadvantaging the consumers. There is simply no up-side in this for consumers.

QFT

[Sandwalker]

You keep implying that those who disagree with you do so because we don't understand how the internet works, or we *think* we aren't pro-capitalism, and so on.

 

Many of the people around here are pretty smart. I don't think you're going to get very far by insisting that we just don't know any better.

When your Netflix begins to stream as choppily as an '05 YouTube video, and your kids can't watch assigned animal documentaries made by a small company, perhaps that won't bother you.

 

Getting all news sources and entertainment chosen for you by the one or two monopolised corporations in your area that provide service, and the ones they "don't like" throttled to oblivion is not my cup of tea. The ISPs need to keep their hands off the internet to keep it open and fair, but now they have the legal power to direct the content in order to make the most money, and to further any political agenda desired, since they can throttle the news they disagree with, too.

 

And what if a Chinese or Russian company bought up, say, Comcast, instead of buying up real estate in Manhattan? Wouldn't it be interesting to discover what you couldn't learn about on the web then?

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sandwalker

[ktgrok]

 but I have a fairly strong confidence in a minimally regulated free market. 

 

I have  more confidence in snake oil salesmen and the Easter bunny than I do in a minimally regulated free market. All I have to do is think about Asbestos, the triangle shirt factory fire, black lung, child labor, lead in children's toys, or the 4 hours I spent this week fighting my insurance company to remember how badly companies will treat people if they think they can get away with it. 

 

We are not going to get "mom and pop" internet any time soon. We are not going to get more competition anytime soon, if ever. (trends certainly seem to be going the other way.) But we can have net neutrality right now. 

[ktgrok]

 

We have had a neutral internet all this time without net neutrality laws. Nothing has actually happened legally speaking. People are getting whipped up into a frenzy over what basically amounts to nothing at this exact moment. Everyone is up in arms demanding a new law (and ready to chew someones head off for not being in favor of it). No one is up in arms demanding free (er?) access to internet providers.

 

Huh? People are upset about repealing net neutrality, it's already in place. 

[Lanny]

Back in the 1970's    when DARPA established what has now evolved into the Internet for everyone to use, and I don't remember the initials for that original network, which was for U.S. Military and some Research Universities to use, I cannot imagine that anyone at that time could possibly envision how it is used at the end of 2017.

 

My impression (not verified by investigation) is that a lot of this has to do with Streaming services, Netflix, Prime, etc. that are using a huge percentage of the available bandwidth.

 

I doubt this would have any impact on Online Classes.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

We had net neutrality for a long time without laws, because everyone believed in a free and open internet, and the courts upheld that premise. If you check out all the lawsuits, you will see that net neutrality was “enforced†by the courts before it was law, again, because everyone thought it was the right thing. Companies pushed the boundaries more and more at the expensive of citizens, so it was clear that what everyone thought was the right thing needed to be codified.

 

A simplistic and drastic analogy is a utopia where murder isn’t against the law because, well, everyone knows it’s wrong and no one does it. Then people start killing to speed up their inheritance or eliminate the competition, and the government decides to make a law.

 

Yes, we had net neutrality all this time, but when it was threatened, it was time to make a law.

 

In addition to the bolded, much of what was being offered via the internet was not in direct competition with many of the companies providing internet service and there was generally no significant difference in the amount of data being used by certain services.  Online streaming of media content has changed the market significantly and is a likely target in a non-neutral world.

[G5052]

I teach online for two providers, so I'm concerned. Time will tell though.

 

I know that the college I teach online for was already in negotiations with the company they get internet from and have a reasonable agreement in place. They are one of the largest community colleges in the U.S. and have one of the largest online components of any state college, so they were working on this ahead of the legislation.

 

I don't know about the other one. I can see why the smaller online schools are concerned. I don't know this, but I assume that Lone Pine got a significant cost increase and couldn't negotiate a better package.

[Julie Smith]

I found John Oliver did a great job explaining net neutrality. I recommend you google, “John Oliver net neutratily†he has two videos about it, once a few years old and a more recent one.

[Serenade]

Yoikes, I'm seeing all kinds of confusion here! (although I will say it has nothing to do with the person who's giving up her online class - as nothing has taken effect yet, so it seems like a bogus excuse).  But it seems like some people think NN just got passed (not repealed) and that it could be bad.

 

Net neutrality is GOOD.  It's what we've always had.  They just voted to take it AWAY.

 

For an analogy, let's use roads and cars.  Roads got built, you get to drive your car anywhere on any road.  You can use the highway if it gets you there faster, no tolls, no restrictions.  That's 'net neutrality'.  It always was the way the internet worked, but some providers were building faster 'highways' and wanted to put up tolls, and put restrictions on who could drive on them.  So 'net neutrality' was passed to say they didn't get to do that.  It wasn't a change, it said, providers can't restrict speed or charge you for getting to websites that weren't 'preferred' by them.

 

So, now they're REPEALING that.  So, you want to get on the highway, you have to pay extra toll, or you have to go backroads really slow.  If you're Walmart, you pay the guy with the road extra, and people get to drive on the highway to get to your store, but all the little stores are only available via backroads.  Or not at all.  And you will be paying extra on your end to use the highway at all - they'll be able to get paid extra on both ends - from the guy with the store and the people who want to use their car to get there.

 

There's another possible aspect of this that a post on FB brought up that I hadn't even thought of - I'll paste it here:

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208157390690780&set=a.4258544280129.1073741827.1781566363&type=3

 

To sum up: It could easily be that without net neutrality the internet could become more like cable with bundled packages.  So, if your website isn't in the package, good luck.  That goes even beyond speed and convenience.

 

Again, none of this has taken effect yet, and I believe there are a ton of lawsuits trying to block the repeal, so the person who canceled her online classes is totally making up an excuse.  But everyone that uses the internet should care about this.  What if the WTM site is suddenly 10x slower, or heaven forbid, not part of the bundled package?   :eek:

 

Thanks for this explanation. Very clear and easy to understand.

[Dmmetler]

Back in the 1970's when DARPA established what has now evolved into the Internet for everyone to use, and I don't remember the initials for that original network, which was for U.S. Military and some Research Universities to use, I cannot imagine that anyone at that time could possibly envision how it is used at the end of 2017.

 

My impression (not verified by investigation) is that a lot of this has to do with Streaming services, Netflix, Prime, etc. that are using a huge percentage of the available bandwidth.

 

I doubt this would have any impact on Online Classes.

I don’t know for Lone Pine, but I can tell you that when DD wrote her online class, she used a lot of materials from PBS TeacherTube. OnlineG3 uses Discovery Education quite a bit. Video streaming is a concern for many of the online classes DD has done.

[goldberry]

If that's your view, I respect your right to it, but I just don't share it. I understand that "voting with your dollar" doessn't produce results as quickly as people would always like, but I have a fairly strong confidence in a minimally regulated free market. It doesn't offend me if you don't feel that way.

 

Just to clarify, I was addressing your specific example, but my issue with net neutrality focuses on the internet being the primary source of free and open information.  It is not the same as a company choosing to offer one product over another.  There is a reason why (until recently) that news markets were controlled fairly tightly to prevent one company or entity controlling the flow of information into a market area.

 

The revolution of the internet was huge in opening up a flow of open information to society. Big business doesn't like the fact that they can't control that on the internet, in spite of the fact that they do to some extent (via paying for search engine optimization, etc).  I believe this to be a positive change (even though of course it also opened up lots of bad things as well.)  The internet was a great step toward evening of the playing field in what type of information could reach people.   Allowing money to control the flow further than it already does is a step back.  

 

The internet is the primary source of the flow of information.  As such, society has an interest in keeping that information open and flowing. So, I am not opposed to the free market - I would love to see 50 ISPs fighting for my business.  But I do not want the government OR big money controlling my flow of information.  That is a higher priority to me.  Information = knowledge = choices.  Taking away or regulating sources of information is the highest form of thought control.

[goldberry]

We have had a neutral internet all this time without net neutrality laws. Nothing has actually happened legally speaking. People are getting whipped up into a frenzy over what basically amounts to nothing at this exact moment. Everyone is up in arms demanding a new law (and ready to chew someones head off for not being in favor of it). No one is up in arms demanding free (er?) access to internet providers.

 

I'm not chewing anyone's head off.  But did you even look at all the legal cases I showed above that dealt with this issue?  The FCC has been enforcing the principle of net neutrality for years now. Plenty has actually happened legally speaking. Companies have tried to control this, and have been kept in check (to an extent).  We have now removed the principle keeping them in check.  

[Sneezyone]

As early as 2004, the FCC adopted four principles of an open internet:

• Freedom to access content.
• Freedom to run applications.
• Freedom to attach devices.
• Freedom to obtain service plan information

These were adopted as policy in 2005. They were not very specific, which makes sense because things change so much. So of course companies were trying to push the boundaries. But often when these cases went to the FCC, they resulted in a ruling favorable for the consumer.

 

2005:

https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

 

2008:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93194962

 

2009:

http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

 

2010:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2011:

https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

 

2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html?utm_term=.cafd9cd09c10

 

There are more. That's why I consider the claim that the problem is hypothetical to not be valid. Companies have been trying to control and throttle content from the very beginning and have been (barely) held in check.

 

In 2010, the Comcast case got overturned on appeal. The problem was whether or not the FCC had jurisdiction to regulate this sort of thing. In 2014 another ruling got struck down for this same issue. That's why in 2015 the FCC reclassified broadband providers as common carriers to provide jurisdiction.

 

So net neutrality did not just start in 2015. We had the principle of net neutrality long before then. We had the FCC at least trying to keep in check the efforts of big business to control and throttle content. What we have done now is kill the very principle that consumers deserve a free and open internet with equal opportunity to access all content. None of those cases I listed, plus many others, would be able to be prosecuted now. It is not hypothetical or conjecture.

There’s also a huge issue, which I worked on some years back, with telecoms seeking to prevent rural areas from forming their own fiber collaborative (like Chattanooga, TN) and capturing the state legislature and restricting access to EDUCATION ONLY backbone networks run by/maintained by colleges and universities (that were already paid for with public funds). We fought the good fight in Arkansas and lost. They (the telecoms through bought and paid for legislators) threatened to defund/disconnect ARE-ON (fiber network that the state flagship relies on) if we didn’t stop trying to use that massive fiber backbone to connect K-12 public schools.

 

Of course, it’s kids who will suffer for lack of access to data sets/content and broadband service but who cares, right? They’re rural, poor and don’t vote on broadband/internet. It sucks that people remain so ignorant about this. The burden of rural isolation is real and these communities will never see broadband investment without robust competition or common carrier regulation as we did with electrification.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

Just to clarify, I was addressing your specific example, but my issue with net neutrality focuses on the internet being the primary source of free and open information.  It is not the same as a company choosing to offer one product over another.  There is a reason why (until recently) that news markets were controlled fairly tightly to prevent one company or entity controlling the flow of information into a market area.

 

The revolution of the internet was huge in opening up a flow of open information to society. Big business doesn't like the fact that they can't control that on the internet, in spite of the fact that they do to some extent (via paying for search engine optimization, etc).  I believe this to be a positive change (even though of course it also opened up lots of bad things as well.)  The internet was a great step toward evening of the playing field in what type of information could reach people.   Allowing money to control the flow further than it already does is a step back.  

 

The internet is the primary source of the flow of information.  As such, society has an interest in keeping that information open and flowing. So, I am not opposed to the free market - I would love to see 50 ISPs fighting for my business.  But I do not want the government OR big money controlling my flow of information.  That is a higher priority to me.  Information = knowledge = choices.  Taking away or regulating sources of information is the highest form of thought control.

 

So the internet being classified as a public utility would be a bad thing because government regulators and lobbyists of the big communications companies would then have much more influence over the internet, no?  The only way "big money" gets influence is via government regulation that they can lobby for. The people arguing for "net neutrality" are arguing for more government control of the internet, not less. And as a result, more influence from "big money" because who gets the most say in new laws and regulations? The people that can afford lawyers and lobbyists, which isn't individuals. Also, the fact that the people making policy in many government organizations these days have direct ties to big giant companies that want to control the market make it very difficult for individuals to have any influence once the government takes hold an industry via something like net neutrality.

[Mergath]

When your Netflix begins to stream as choppily as an '05 YouTube video, and your kids can't watch assigned animal documentaries made by a small company, perhaps that won't bother you.

 

Getting all news sources and entertainment chosen for you by the one or two monopolised corporations in your area that provide service, and the ones they "don't like" throttled to oblivion is not my cup of tea. The ISPs need to keep their hands off the internet to keep it open and fair, but now they have the legal power to direct the content in order to make the most money, and to further any political agenda desired, since they can throttle the news they disagree with, too.

 

And what if a Chinese or Russian company bought up, say, Comcast, instead of buying up real estate in Manhattan? Wouldn't it be interesting to discover what you couldn't learn about on the web then?

I'm not sure if I phrased something badly, but I just want to clarify that I'm very pro-NN.

[goldberry]

What the net neutrality provisions were actually aimed at, vs how they were sold to the public, are quite at odds.

 

The repeal is a recategorization of broadband from a Title I to a Title II service under the Communications Act. This decision had little to do with net neutrality but meant that lobbyists and courts would be able to pressure Washington steadily in the direction of regulating the internet the way it did the railroads in the first part of the 20th century.

 

The whinging from the tech blogs and left in general shows quite the misunderstanding of why exactly was repealed and why. This is for marshaling public support by classifying a narrow and technical issue (federal management and classification of a service and the responsibilities of he agency therein) that is rather esoteric to something they could get the random person off the street upset about (No! Don’t throttle my Netflix) that actually had nothing to do with the repeal.

 

Hence why the Internet functioned before the Obama rules change, and after the repeal. And Iron Fist and Travelers still streams just fine.

 

 

 

You are mistaken.  The recategorization was done to enable the FCC to enforce this area.  They had been enforcing it, as evidenced by all the court cases I listed, plus many more.  Those rulings (which protected an open flow of information) were since being overturned because of how broadband was categorized, allowed a legal challenge saying the FCC had no jurisdiction.  The recategorization was a direct response to those appeal rulings to close the legal loophole.

 

The court cases I referenced would no longer be able to be prosecuted.  There is now no enforcement mechanism protecting consumer interest in this area.  That is the real and verifiable outcome of repealing this.

[goldberry]

So the internet being classified as a public utility would be a bad thing because government regulators and lobbyists of the big communications companies would then have much more influence over the internet, no?  The only way "big money" gets influence is via government regulation that they can lobby for. .

 

That's the only way you think money influences the internet?  I think I must be misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

What we basically have done is cut out the step where they even have to lobby to get what they want.  We just gave them permission to do whatever they want, with no one to challenge it.  

[ktgrok]

The only way "big money" gets influence is via government regulation that they can lobby for. The people arguing for "net neutrality" are arguing for more government control of the internet, not less.

 

um, no? Big money can get control by buying up ISPs, or investing in them enough to influence how they operate. They can directly buy in, no lobbying needed. 

 

 

 

If net neutrality made it harder for big money, they wouldn't be lobbying against it. 

[goldberry]

No, I’m not mistaken. I addressed this in my post regarding content control and monopolies.

 

The actual repeal is narrow and specific. As cited.

 

The repeal denies FCC enforcement authority.  Can you explain who has that authority now?  Can you explain in the court cases I cited how those rights would be protected now, and by whom?

[Sneezyone]

No, I’m not mistaken. I addressed this in my post regarding content control and monopolies.

 

The actual repeal is narrow and specific. As cited.

My post, above, is specifically about why common carrier designation was needed in rural areas/states. We were outgunned and outmanned by the telecoms who make a fricking killing selling slow service at top dollar and reinvesting the profits in NY and LA. Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Mergath]

Side question- how do the individual search providers play into all of this? I guess at this point mainly Google, but also Microsoft, etc. They play a huge part in determining what comes to you in searches, and since obviously companies can pay to bury certain info, or bring it to the forefront, that seems to also be a serious concern in information control. But I haven't heard much about them- simply the ISPs. But the search engines, and power they wield themselves seems pretty important.

People are very concerned about that, too. But you can theoretically still go out and find info that Google doesn't prioritize in your search. Now, your ISP could actually prevent you from even seeking out that info if it really wanted to.

[Sneezyone]

So the internet being classified as a public utility would be a bad thing because government regulators and lobbyists of the big communications companies would then have much more influence over the internet, no? The only way "big money" gets influence is via government regulation that they can lobby for. The people arguing for "net neutrality" are arguing for more government control of the internet, not less. And as a result, more influence from "big money" because who gets the most say in new laws and regulations? The people that can afford lawyers and lobbyists, which isn't individuals. Also, the fact that the people making policy in many government organizations these days have direct ties to big giant companies that want to control the market make it very difficult for individuals to have any influence once the government takes hold an industry via something like net neutrality.

I agreed with you to point out that the telecoms have already passed laws in poorer states guaranteeing their monopolies persist. Taking down the federal restrictions was a coup because it was the only thing preventing complete industry capture. There is no legal way, in many states, for a city to fund its own broadband network to offer an alternative provider thanks to these state laws. Were you aware of that? Most people aren’t. The anti-competitive laws are already on the books in most of America so the idea of increasing competition by removing NN is just so crazy to me. Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

I’m aware of this. Remember I lived in Alaska? I get four times the speed at a third the cost here in Ohio.

 

The previous rules didn’t improve that and the repeal hasn’t affected it. Again, this is a remarkably narrow issue in practice, and trying to guarantee broadband as a utility has a direct effect on the price (and not a favorable one, unfortunately).

The previous rules gave the feds the ability to regulate telecoms as a common carrier and OVERRIDE those state laws if they chose to. That mechanism is now gone. The rules were in effect less than three years. The FCC barely got a chance. I worked my ass of to build the record to show why common carrier was necessary for rural America only to have people act like there was no need now? Insanity. Edited December 28, 2017 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

Out of curiosity, when’s the last time a monopoly was successfully prosecuted and broken up. Ma Bell was over 49 years ago.