Google, Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and the rest of the gang already pay huge amounts for their internet connections (and the massive amounts of infrastructure they build themselves). Data centers around the world to help ensure that their users (i.e. customer base) have usable access to their sites. For all the bandwidth sucked up by users on the receiving end, these companies are paying for that bandwidth to send that information. Who pays for the bandwidth on the receiving end, then? I do! That’s what internet access is! That’s what I’m paying $100/month for!
So if Facebook is paying tens of millions of dollars a month to let people access their site, and billions of people are paying their ISPs tens of billions of dollars for internet access, who’s getting a “free ride?”
The net neutrality debate kicked into high gear (and resulted in the 2015 Title II classification) around the time Comcast and Verizon started openly threatening Netflix because of their “high bandwidth usage,” claiming that they’d need to increase bandwidth to various backbones in order to continue offering this content. Netflix responded by offering to co-locate servers on their networks – free of charge, thus eliminating the need for these “necessary expensive upgrades.” Verizon and Comcast both declined the offer, and instead demanded cash from Netflix to ensure that Netflix would still have access to their customers – customers who were already paying for Netflix and internet access.
This isn’t a new problem – it’s as old as the internet itself. Backbone providers have peering and transit agreements to ensure that traffic can go across networks in a way that is fair and profitable. It has nothing to do with what is being accessed, and everything to do with how much is being accessed.
If these ISPs weren’t already rolling around in insane amounts of cash, involved in mergers and acquisitions to increase their monopolistic stranglehold on customers who already hate their poor service, I might have a drop of sympathy for them. As it is, corporate interests are influencing government to re-legalize behaviors that resulted in consumer outrage, but the only alternative for consumers is to drop off the internet altogether.
I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that we’re only subjected to throttling out of this. If ISPs start treating the internet like cable TV packages, the information age will end with a whimper.
in 2008 FCC ruled comcast illegally throttled bittorrent traffic, but i know 15% of US users were still being throttled in 2014 and 2015 so i’m not sure. i still believe ISPs would have done whatever they want last month, just a little sneakier, and paid the fine if they got caught. i think net neutrality is being misrepresented by EFF, google, facebook and others. i guess we can just wait and see
“The United States had a throttling rate of 14 percent, whereas the United Kingdom was the second most throttled country in Europe with 28 percent, beaten only by Poland with 35 percent.”
look at china, they have the most restrictive firewalls in the world and if you’re determined and knowledgeable you can bypass all of them. maybe people will adopt better security practices. i could also see that being their hoped intention, as they don’t need warrant to snoop on users who hide behind VPNs and proxies, so everyone would be legal fair game.
The original regulations didn’t pass until 2015. Other than that I don’t really understand your argument. The regulations kept ISP’s from selectively slowing down content from providers that did not pay them. Content providers already paid for the bandwidth they used. ISP’s just wanted a way to shake them down for more money.
PTP stuff is different since you the consumer should be getting the upload and download speeds you pay for. In this case throttling would still probably be illegal. Since you are being sold a service that the ISP is not providing. It would all depend on the contract you have with your ISP though
if ISPs try blocking certain content you can always get around it with proxies and stuff.
i believe recently (last year or this?) the US passed a bill stating they don’t require a warrant to intercept or snoop on any user who is concealing their IP/location (VPN, VPS, TOR, proxy etc) so this removal of net neutrality could be designed to encourage more users to start using VPNs/TOR, thus removing their protection from warantless spying/searches. it’s probably not a main goal but an added bonus for them.
they aren’t separate issues because net neutrality is ‘all internet traffic should be treated equally’ - but who decides what’s equal or who gets priority etc? the government? usually it’s consumers via supply/demand.
it’s like a grocery store, some companies pay more to have their products near the front of the store or at eye level on the shelf. if you told the grocery store they had to place all the products ‘neutrally’ how would they accomplish it? someone still has to be on the bottom shelf, or at the back, etc. i don’t know if neutrality can really exist.
Like I said it’s not about the ISP’s blocking content. It is about them being able to legally extort their customers.
This is hilarious! I’m sure they we’re doing it to encourage the public to protect themselves while online! The giant profit for the ISP’s was just an unintended consequence!!!
it is literally ‘all internet traffic treated equal’ - blocking traffic, whether for money or otherwise, is the opposite of net neutrality. and i don’t mean to protect users lol, it’s to remove their protections, so they can snoop on anyone without warrant. a VPN is the opposite of protection these days. its definitely a money thing, but i’m sure they fully plan on expoiting that unintended consequence as well
they’ve only had the title I or II classification or whatever for 2 years. at no point before that was internet packaged and sold like cable and ISPs are already saying they will not be doing that going forward either. so i don’t know where this huge monetary windfall is coming from but i don’t think it’s consumers. i guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens. all i know is if trump and trudeau get elected again i’m going to be pissed.
A closer analogy might be: imagine that a grocery store carries a popular product, and that product competes with the in-store brand. Comcast Supermarket decided that anyone buying Netflix Cereal was only allowed to use one line, and thus anyone wanting to buy Netflix Cereal wastes their life in line trying to get the thing they want. Meanwhile, there are dozens of other open lines… but Comcast Supermarket wants to make sure those are open so people buying Comcast-brand products get the best shopping experience.
Still far from a perfect analogy, but…
Being completely selfish: my company makes internet-based software. We’re small potatoes compared to Google and friends, so hopefully we won’t have to negotiate with Comcast and Verizon to make sure that our customers continue to have access to our product. Title II classification ensured that our customer base would have access, and now we don’t have that. Now, at any point, an ISP can hold our customers (i.e. our revenue) hostage until we pay up to ensure continued access.
Nice customer base you’ve got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to them (they say as they twirl guns around on their fingers).
The reason Title II classification came along was because ISPs started down the road of blocking, extra fees, and straight-up extortion. Color me skeptical about their saying that they won’t block, throttle, or impose extra fees going forward.
do you have a source for this? they have never created paid fast lanes in the decades the internet has existed. obama admin exempted google and co from net neutrality even though they have used their power and search algorithms to unfairly promote their own products and strengthen their monopolies. i’d be more worried about google manipulation of search results harming your business than ISPs potentially doing something they’ve never done and likely could have and would have done anyways even under net neutrality. you wouldn’t really know if they had, and they’d pay the fine if they were caught.
“When FM was invented,” B.K. Marcus writes in his article The Spectrum Should be Private Property,“the established AM broadcasters had the FCC suppress it, delaying its widespread use by decades.
These same corporations, with the FCC’s help, “made sure cable TV was a non-starter for yet more decades.”
i don’t think you can rely on government regulation, and especially the fcc in particular, to work in the best interests of the public. its funny the comparisons to internet being treated like cable when television has been under FCC control since inception…
the only way for true neutrality is not complete government control, or control by corporations/ISP - it is a new internet designed to be completely uncensored, open source and self sufficient to begin with.
My search-fu is not strong on this topic, but the above are things I’ve been personally impacted by so I knew what to search for
Separate issue, and one for the FTC – not FCC. If Google Fiber (their ISP) inhibited access to Google’s competition, then this would be a net neutrality issue. Google search prioritizing their own services/products (and “deceptive ads” that mix ads into search results without making clear that they’re ads) are certainly concerning, potentially illegal, and they’ve been repeatedly fined for such practices. This is part of why I use Google as little as possible – fortunately, I can (still) access DuckDuckGo and ProtonMail as easily as Google and Gmail.
Title II carrier status ensured that I would be able to access these competing products. The new regulations of “we love each and every one of you and we don’t need to be burdened by law” don’t. If the ISPs aren’t going to prioritize traffic, block/filter traffic, or make so-called “internet fast lanes,” then why was it necessary to repeal Title II carrier status? Why was so much time and money spent lobbying to repeal net neutrality if ISPs are going to adhere to the now-repealed regulations?
US representative proposes “Shall Not Censor” bill which would legally extend americans constitutionally protected right to free speech on to social media platforms. it would only apply to platforms above a certain market threshold, which would currently be youtube, facebook, reddit and twitter. smaller message boards and services would not be affected.
“because people generally like how the platforms perform in terms of functionality. This law will not interfere with features or functionality, so market forces will remain in play. The problem is their censorship of lawful speech. Hypocritically, the same companies that support net neutrality also want to censor your speech. We say no.”
i know what a red herring is, but as you said ‘free speech and ISPs are different issues’
i don’t really care about american ISPs because canadian ones already throttle traffic and so did american ones under net neutrality and they will continue to either way. we both think the other is wrong and that’s ok. i think EFF (soros) and google have tricked you, and you think umm politicians? FCC? have tricked me.
i care more about the free speech issue, and if they force youtube and the rest to stop demonetizing political videos and censoring anyone who isn’t a zionist or democrat i’m happy (aka infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens)
