Goodbye Net Neutrality

Quote: JB

No, NN ensures that customers have equal access to the BMW website and the Chevy website, with neither being favored over the other.

The cable companies are monopolies. You can't move into a new house and choose between Cox, Comcast, or Charter. You get one choice, thus no choice.

Now these monopolies are being given the green light to tell BMW that they'll drop or throttle their traffic unless BMW pays the ISP $xxx,xxx,xxx. This is extortion. You can say "BMW has the right to pay for better service" all you want, but it's extortion. And it doesn't stop there: since they're a monopoly, they can tell the same thing to Chevy, and Mercedes, and Ford, and so on. And they can do this to competing companies across multiple industries, making their victims think they're gaining an advantage over their competition, when in reality, they'll just be paying exorbitant amounts of money for the same access that NN ensures we have today.

That is an abuse of a monopolistic position from companies who are "above" the currently free market.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, NN is not a free market. It is making internet a utility. And it ensures that there is less chance that someone will lay fiber to compete with the Cox/Comcasts of the world. To like NN is to like the Bell System pre-1983, when you had zero choice. We had higher prices and worse service back then.

Quote: JB

That might be the difference in our view: to me, the internet is a utility. An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.

If you want to compare NN to the telephone system, NN is like saying that whatever phone number you dial will be connected to immediately. Without NN, some phone numbers will be "preferred" and will be connected to ASAP, while all others will be artificially delayed or simply dropped. Naturally, the phone numbers which will be connected right away will be to companies that Bell squeezed money out of because "we sure wouldn't want your phone not to ring when someone calls you".

Quote: JB

That might be the difference in our view: to me, the internet is a utility. An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.

If you want to compare NN to the telephone system, NN is like saying that whatever phone number you dial will be connected to immediately. Without NN, some phone numbers will be "preferred" and will be connected to ASAP, while all others will be artificially delayed or simply dropped. Naturally, the phone numbers which will be connected right away will be to companies that Bell squeezed money out of because "we sure wouldn't want your phone not to ring when someone calls you".

Quote: AZDuffman

And it ensures that there is less chance that someone will lay fiber to compete with the Cox/Comcasts of the world. .

Quote:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and media outlets have been citing the work of The Free State Foundation (FSF) to argue against current net neutrality rules. But media have failed to note that the foundation is heavily backed by the telecommunications industry, which has lobbied against the 2015 open internet rules put in place by former President Barack Obama’s administration.

Net neutrality, as explained by the nonprofit group Free Press, is “the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use.”

Corporations and Republicans like Pai have been trying to dismantle those rules since President Donald Trump’s election. Pai delivered an April 26 speech detailing his desire to do that and tried to justify his plans by saying of the Communications Act title related to net neutrality: “According to one estimate by the nonprofit Free State Foundation, Title II has already cost our country $5.1 billion in broadband capital investment.”

Gizmodo staff writer Libby Watson, who previously wrote for the Sunlight Foundation and Media Matters, noted that Pai’s cost argument is bogus, writing that a Free Press analysis found that internet service providers' "capital expenditure increased more after net neutrality was passed than in the two years before it." She added that “ISPs themselves happily boast of investments when they’re not whining to regulators.”
FSF has been pushing pro-telecom research while receiving nearly half a million dollars from telecommunications trade associations in recent years.

CTIA, a group that represents “the U.S. wireless communications industry” and counts AT&T, T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless as members, issued a statement praising Pai’s recent remarks. The group’s IRS 990 forms state that it gave FSF $63,750 in 2014 (the most recent year available), $58,750 in 2013, and $75,000 in 2012.

NCTA - The Internet Television Association, whose members include Charter Communications, Comcast Corp., and Cox Communications, gave the FSF $105,000 in 2014, $100,000 in 2013, and $85,000 in 2012. The group also praised Pai’s remarks.

A statement on the FSF website acknowledges that it receives contributions from “a wide variety of companies in the communications, information services, entertainment, and high-tech marketplaces, among others, as well as from foundations and many individuals.” In an email to Media Matters, a foundation spokesperson said, “All of our support is general support with none earmarked for net neutrality or any other designated project or issue.”

Following Pai’s speech, outlets such as the Washington Examiner and Daily Caller quoted FSF’s president, Randolph May, praising the FCC chairperson without noting the foundation's telecom backing.

This has become a familiar pattern since Trump’s election. Outlets such as USA Today (repeatedly), The Hill, and Bloomberg have quoted May praising Trump’s plans to curtail net neutrality. And The Washington Times and The Hill have published opinion pieces by FSF employees arguing against regulation on the telecom industry without disclosing the group’s funding sources.

Pai, who formerly worked as a lawyer at Verizon, will speak at FSF’s Ninth Annual Telecom Policy Conference on May 31. Other speakers include executives from AT&T, Comcast, and CTIA. Pai also spoke at the group’s 10th anniversary luncheon last December and praised the group for being “a key voice fighting against the FCC’s regulatory overreach in areas such as net neutrality.”

The telecom industry and anti-net neutrality companies like AT&T have given funding to numerous organizations that criticize regulations and net neutrality in the media (often without disclosure). With the debate over net neutrality reignited, media outlets will have a lot of opportunities to correctly note the funding sources of media-friendly groups that are opposing consumer-friendly rules.

Quote: JB

You can't move into a new house and choose between Cox, Comcast, or Charter. You get one choice, thus no choice.

Quote: kenarman

I don't know anything about the system in the US but the above seems to be where the real problem is. Where a provider can own a neighbourhood. In Canada in most homes have access to 3 providers via cable/fibre and another provider via satellite. The competition between them keeps anything from happening like the scenario you are creating.

Quote:

In July 2015, the CRTC ruled that major telecoms providing fibre to the home must allow smaller providers to purchase wholesale access to their networks. Bell Canada attempted to oppose the ruling, but failed.

Quote: AZDuffman

You have and will keep having access to the internet, all of it. But bandwidth hogs should be allowed to pay for better service. "Where it is headed" is for Netflix and a few others to be able to crash the system as they keep growing. NN would be like if everyone paid the same flat rate for electricity or water. Now the aluminum smelter and brewery would use more of both, but the utility would not be able to charge more.

I have actually given NN much thought over the years. In the end I looked at who was pushing it and who was not. I looked at the motives of those parties in multiple matters. The people pushing NN love to regulate, the ones against are not as crazy about regulating. I will take the risk in favor of the potential benefits.

Quote: JB

An ISP should be just that, an internet service provider. I want access to the entire internet, not a small handful of websites that paid the ISP big money. Without NN, that's where it's headed.