Federal Regulator Expected To Hand Huge Win To Net Neutrality

[coloradoatheist]

They could if they decide to change their pricing model.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding either you or the concept of net neutrality. The ISPs sell you an internet pipe of X Gb/sec and perhaps also a maximum GB/month. That's it. What providers/sites you're getting your allotment from doesn't matter. You get X Gb/sec regardless of what sites you're connected to. Comcast WANTS to be able to structure their packages like you say. Net neutrality means NOT doing that. Up until recently this was the de facto standard. Now people want it to have force of law because the ISPs want to structure internet service like cable packages.

If you have a 5Mb pipe you aren't given 5Mb to CNN or 5Mb to youtube or 5Mb to Netflix. You are given 5Mb to the central office. They don't guarantee anything else.

 

[Axulus]

They could if they decide to change their pricing model.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding either you or the concept of net neutrality. The ISPs sell you an internet pipe of X Gb/sec and perhaps also a maximum GB/month. That's it. What providers/sites you're getting your allotment from doesn't matter. You get X Gb/sec regardless of what sites you're connected to. Comcast WANTS to be able to structure their packages like you say. Net neutrality means NOT doing that. Up until recently this was the de facto standard. Now people want it to have force of law because the ISPs want to structure internet service like cable packages.

It is my understanding that net neutrality legislation will prevent any internet network from charging websites a fee to be made available to that network's subscribers, as well as preventing it from charging websites a fee to access a "faster lane" or "priority lane" to improve speeds or performance of that website on that network, and also prevent the network from allowing certain websites better access/higher priority access compared to others while denying others the same. I have not heard it refer to regulations on how they may price their services to the customers/subscribers.

 

[ksen]

They could charge the customers extra for going over the bandwidth allotment the customer paid for. They could not charge the customer extra for downloading too much data specifically from Netflix.

They could if they decide to change their pricing model.

They could, sure. But this new regulation would supposedly make it easier for google to expand its services as well as for municipalities to create their own ISPs. So, good luck with that Comcast in neighborhoods where google and/or municipal options become available.

 

[Axulus]

They could if they decide to change their pricing model.

They could, sure. But this new regulation would supposedly make it easier for google to expand its services as well as for municipalities to create their own ISPs. So, good luck with that Comcast in neighborhoods where google and/or municipal options become available.

I support more options, but why do you need net neutrality regulation for that?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I often wish my water company would charge me differently based upon what I use the water for rather then the volume I use.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They could if they decide to change their pricing model.

They could, sure. But this new regulation would supposedly make it easier for google to expand its services as well as for municipalities to create their own ISPs. So, good luck with that Comcast in neighborhoods where google and/or municipal options become available.

In my neighborhood where we have options Comcast only gives internet discounts to people who bundle internet with certain cable packages. This is why they charge so much.

 

[Axulus]

I often wish my water company would charge me differently based upon what I use the water for rather then the volume I use.

But there are two things in play - total volume used as well as liters per minute. If you needed more liters per minute, you should pay more even if you use the same volume.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I often wish my water company would charge me differently based upon what I use the water for rather then the volume I use.

But there are two things in play - total volume used as well as liters per minute. If you needed more liters per minute, you should pay more even if you use the same volume.

So not only pay for how I use my water, but the delivery and pressure for each use.

Brilliant.

 

[Axulus]

But there are two things in play - total volume used as well as liters per minute. If you needed more liters per minute, you should pay more even if you use the same volume.

So not only pay for how I use my water, but the delivery and pressure for each use.

Brilliant.

Ability to deliver more liters per minute costs more to provide. It's why there is a significant difference in the hook-up fee if you want to hook up to the city water with a 3/4" pipe vs a 1" or a 1.5" pipe

 

[Jarhyn]

I often wish my water company would charge me differently based upon what I use the water for rather then the volume I use.

But there are two things in play - total volume used as well as liters per minute. If you needed more liters per minute, you should pay more even if you use the same volume.

In the example of water usage, much as with data usage, liters per minute only has any importance when others are requesting to use less than that amount and your usage prevents theirs. ISPs specifically market their services as a liters-per-minute offering, sometimes with a total cap. Proceeding to actually demand more because people can and do achieve that level is just plain wrong. They sold the service, they should provide the service. If they oversold, they should be required by regulators to meet whatever high water mark of capability they have failed to provide. If that's expsensive, waaaah.

 

[ksen]

They could, sure. But this new regulation would supposedly make it easier for google to expand its services as well as for municipalities to create their own ISPs. So, good luck with that Comcast in neighborhoods where google and/or municipal options become available.

I support more options, but why do you need net neutrality regulation for that?

For one, the market is moving away from net neutrality so it appears it will take some government intervention to keep the internet neutral.

Secondly, the agents in the ISP market are exerting a lot of influence over state and local governments to keep other competitors out so it will take some federal intervention to allow more competition to develop in local ISP markets which ought to be a desirable end.

 

[Axulus]

But there are two things in play - total volume used as well as liters per minute. If you needed more liters per minute, you should pay more even if you use the same volume.

In the example of water usage, much as with data usage, liters per minute only has any importance when others are requesting to use less than that amount and your usage prevents theirs. ISPs specifically market their services as a liters-per-minute offering, sometimes with a total cap. Proceeding to actually demand more because people can and do achieve that level is just plain wrong. They sold the service, they should provide the service. If they oversold, they should be required by regulators to meet whatever high water mark of capability they have failed to provide. If that's expsensive, waaaah.

Agreed. As I said I'm totally fine with cracking down hard on false or deceptive advertising.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So not only pay for how I use my water, but the delivery and pressure for each use.

Brilliant.

Ability to deliver more liters per minute costs more to provide. It's why there is a significant difference in the hook-up fee if you want to hook up to the city water with a 3/4" pipe vs a 1" or a 1.5" pipe

Yes, but you still get charged a different rate whether you want to fill your pool or wash your dishes in an unapproved dishwasher.

- - - Updated - - -

In the example of water usage, much as with data usage, liters per minute only has any importance when others are requesting to use less than that amount and your usage prevents theirs. ISPs specifically market their services as a liters-per-minute offering, sometimes with a total cap. Proceeding to actually demand more because people can and do achieve that level is just plain wrong. They sold the service, they should provide the service. If they oversold, they should be required by regulators to meet whatever high water mark of capability they have failed to provide. If that's expsensive, waaaah.

Agreed. As I said I'm totally fine with cracking down hard on false or deceptive advertising.

Then you should start with Comcast, I mean Xfinity.

http://theoatmeal.com/pl/state_web_winter_2012/google_fiber

 

[Axulus]

Ability to deliver more liters per minute costs more to provide. It's why there is a significant difference in the hook-up fee if you want to hook up to the city water with a 3/4" pipe vs a 1" or a 1.5" pipe

Yes, but you still get charged a different rate whether you want to fill your pool or wash your dishes in an unapproved dishwasher.

It's a theoretical possibility that doesn't seem to be substantiated in actuality. Nor does net neutrality prevent such, right?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Did you know you can pay more per kwh here if you want your power to come from a wind farm?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yes, but you still get charged a different rate whether you want to fill your pool or wash your dishes in an unapproved dishwasher.

It's a theoretical possibility that doesn't seem to be substantiated in actuality. Nor does net neutrality prevent such, right?

Actually pipe neutrality doesn't charge for what the water is being used for, but Pipecast does.

 

[lpetrich]

The purpose of net neutrality is to have a single Internet instead of several walled-garden mini-Internets. The latter had actually happened around 1990 in the form of proprietary online services, like CompuServe, America Online, Prodigy, GEnie, Delphi, and eWorld. Their creators never built an Internet to connect them, and when the "real" Internet became big enough, in the mid 1990's, they either folded or became ISP's.

So does anyone mourn the passing of those online services?

So you are saying that the walled-garden model failed ages ago without any net neutrality regulation or law?

Because something better came along that was already net neutral: the Internet. It was not net neutral because of some decree by Bill Gates or whatever other Hero of Capitalist Labor, it was net neutral because of its origins in government-sponsored networks, notably ARPAnet and NSFnet.

Furthermore, those online services were not in charge of last-mile service. That was handled by the phone companies. The services maintained phone portals that one would dial into, just like with dialup ISP's. However, today's residential broadband ISP's specialize in last-mile service, and that makes them local monopolies and oligopolies, especially with the recent trend toward consolidation. So that's why net neutrality has become a big issue.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/06/news/companies/comcast-customer-super-bitch/index.html?iid=HP_LN

Now Comcast calls customer "Super Bitch"

 

[Jayjay]

So what you are saying is that (despite the evidence that it will increase prices) is that sites like Talk Freethought should pay to have content available to Comcast subscribers?

What evidence are you referring to? If they can't get revenue from content providers, they'll get it from the customers instead. Also, do you seriously think they would charge FRDB for access to their network? Such a site places essentially no burden on their network. It is the sites like Netflix and Youtube that place the heaviest burdens on their network, where bandwidth and latency actually matter most. What we would most likely be talking about is Youtube and Netflix paying Comcast extra to have priority access on the network to deliver the best quality/performance. Other traffic would get lower priority (such as FRDB, which really doesn't need high bandwidth low latency to perform adaquately). The fears that little text and image based websites would have to pay for access seems to be entering into the realm of hysterics.

I think the bigger problem is that Comcast is also providing its own content. So basically, it might ask Youtube and Netflix extra fees just to make its own cable TV bundle more competitive. Furthermore, having to pay Comcast special fees to get extra speed (whcih, if applied to most popular services, is going to be perceived as "normal speed") creates a barrier of entry to newcomers. Want to get your new innovative online streaming service any customers? Pay Comcast.

Cable is something that is hard to compete with. There is no economic incentive to have two cables coming to your house, so depending on where you live you are likely going to have just one take-it-or-leave-it provider (or use other technologies like LTE or satellite, which are in many ways inferior). Just like water or electicity or sewage - and that's precisely why it should be classified as a utility.

 

[maxparrish]

The cry for "Net Neutrality" is just another "it's all about my needs" authoritarian whine clothed in faux populism. Few of the 'outraged' give a hoot about other's services, property rights, the market, the appropriate role of the state, or regulatory effects. Tney really don't need a theory as to the wisdom or propriety of NN regulation because users think that its their "right" to have equal purchasing power, or the ownership of, any fancy of their choice. Some people think they have a right to, say, equality in their TV, or a car, or housing, or food, or college education, or a new kitchen. And now, with the advent of the Internet, they have added broadband to the list of "equality essentials" that have to be extracted from the collective purse for their own wants.

So let's get serious:

This is about is basic economics, rationing scarcity via price. It's a service and for all the hair-pulling it is just like any other service - you get what you pay for.

Look, anyone can use coding and communications protocols on the internet. But the physical means of accessing the internet is not free. The servers, cabling, and other equipment of content and service providers, and of users, must be purchased. ISP's, in particular, are those who have driven the creation of new and vastly improved infrastructure. The old days of the ATT monopoly with 300 bits/second data lines is dead - today we enjoy high speed DSL and Cable and wireless broadband because the ISPS invested in their infrastructure (and we will see continued advances as companies like Verison roll out a 140 billion dollar new fiber cable networks that are many times faster).

Their infrastructure is their business, and it they may profit from it as they see fit. The state should not have the power to dictate how ISP's use their own capital investment to serve their customers. And the idea that the ISP's should maintain a "stupid" Internet of "dumb pipes" that does not distinguish between the costs of high volume providers and their users is absurd.

Unfortunately, when special business interests realize that they may have to pay for their high volume over others infrastructure, or face slower service, they gin up the gullible left about their "rights" and then run to the government to demand that the ISPs to provide a subsidy through the canard of "neutrality".

"Net Neutrality" is no more sensible claiming that all forms of postal mail should be "dumb" pipes of same time to delivery, prices, and volume.