The Week:
“It seems that the Trump era will basically control-Z everything that happened on Obama’s watch,” Oliver sighed. “I genuinely would not be surprised if one night Trump went on TV just to tell us that he personally killed every turkey that Obama ever pardoned.” Now, ISPs are touting their support for a “free and open internet,” with some regulatory changes, but you should take their “support” with a grain of salt, Oliver said, briefly explaining Title I and II of the Communications Act of 1934 — the entertainment “equivalent of chasing an Ambien with a shot of chloroform.”
ISPs like Verizon want to make net neutrality essentially voluntary, and “they now have a powerful ally,” Trump’s new FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, Oliver said. “The dangerous thing about Pai is that he presents himself as a fun, down-to-earth nerd,” with a Twitter feed full of Big Lebowski quotes and a novelty mug he describes as “infamous.” “But for all of Pai’s doofy, hey-I’m-just-like-you-guys persona, there are some things about him that you should really know,” he explained — like that he’s a former lawyer for Verizon who despises regulation, and that some of his ideas to replace Title II are “almost laughably lax.”
Yeah, he’s done it before but the issue has raised its ugly head once again.
And Tom Wheeler wasn’t a former industry employee either.
Net neutrality was anything but, and I fully support Pai in removing it.
I’m glad to see Trump’s FCC killing net neutrality. Its a threat to the free internet.
Not a big fan of Trump, but once and awhile his administration does the right thing.
“Net neutrality was anything but…”
Explain.
“…net neutrality. Its a threat to the free internet.”
Explain.
He’s a troll and full of shit.
You too are full of shit.
Thank you for your logical argument opposing my position.
First, its government control of the internet and the companies that run it. That’s always bad, and always leads to bad things (Hello NSA spying!)
Second, it reduces innovation that will improve the internet. (Hello Ma Bell phone system before it was deregulated)
Third, its done using an old 1930’s era law that shouldn’t be used in this manner, making a joke of how it was done.
He’s looking forward to paying more for access to fewer sites.
The results will be anything but “free.”
Refrain from the insults please.
Refrain from name calling please.
Government regulation does not equal NSA spying, that’s a straw man argument. Please elaborate on how this type of regulation is bad, be specific! Net Neutrality is not the government controlling the internet, far from it, it’s the government telling ISPs they can’t commoditize or restrict access and traffic speeds to any place on the internet.
How does disallowing ISPs to selectively throttle content reduce innovation? If anything, it forces ISPs to create faster networks because they can’t prioritize fast lanes for certain content.
How does the date a law is enacted make it any less relevant. The Emancipation Proclamation is an old 1860’s era law, that doesn’t make it a joke. If it’s still relevant, then it should be used.
As usual, “listen to John Oliver and then go with the opposite of it”.
He’s a hack. Even when he’s occasionally right, he’s a hack, and his arguments tend to boil down to manipulation and insinuation.
Oliver provides negative value.
Because you disagree?
How about “Net Neutrality is Google and pals trying to scare you into thinking your ISP wants to charge you for Facebook, to disguise their desire to make your ISP not able to charge transit fees for outside traffic without peering agreements”.
“Not allowing selective throttling” is “treat all packets the same”, a baseline of “net neutrality”.
But that means “treat VOIP and streaming like bulk transfer” – no QOS, thus your Netflix streaming is borked because your neighbor is doing BitTorrent.
Packets are not the same is an important lesson the Internet has learned.
“Government regulation does not equal NSA spying, that’s a straw man argument. “
Never said it equaled it, I said it could lead to it.
“Please elaborate on how this type of regulation is bad, be specific! “
I was. It will reduce innovation and lead to the government controlling the internet.
“Net Neutrality is not the government controlling the internet, far from it, it’s the government telling ISPs they can’t commoditize or restrict access and traffic speeds to any place on the internet.”
First, that is the government controlling the internet. Maybe only a little bit. But once we say it can control it a little bit, then its easy to say a little more, a little more, and a little more.
Second, what is wrong with commoditizing access? That’s how they pay for the internet, and how speeds have increased and yet prices have remained the same (and in fact decreased because of the effect of inflation. The same goes for “restricting speeds”.
“How does disallowing ISPs to selectively throttle content reduce innovation? If anything, it forces ISPs to create faster networks because they can’t prioritize fast lanes for certain content.”
First, it doesn’t let them explore different techniques of traffic management.
Second it doesn’t let them easily pay for those “faster networks”. What’s wrong with paying more for faster service?
Third, selectively throttling is a very important idea in network design. VoIP traffic MUST have high priority over email traffic. Streaming should have higher priority. (Both good points as Sigivald points out.) Net Neutrality prevents that.
“How does the date a law is enacted make it any less relevant. The Emancipation Proclamation is an old 1860’s era law, that doesn’t make it a joke. If it’s still relevant, then it should be used.”
Because in this case it was a law written for telegraphs. Why should decisions made on how telegraphs operate affect how the internet operates?
Net Neutrality sounds like a good principle on the surface. But when you understand the technology, it doesn’t at all. And when you understand the politics, its even worse.
Exactly, treat all packets the same. I don’t want the ISPs deciding for me what is important and what is not. If the ISPs are worried about content getting slowed down, then they need to invest in better infrastructure and not micromanage the flow.
I get where you are coming from, but here’s the problem. Without “net neutrality” an ISP can make a deal with a service or content provider, they could then legally throttle every other content provider to the point of make their chosen provider the only usable source. Since there are so few options of ISPs, many people have no other option but to use the one ISP they can get.
It would be a wonderful world if all businesses in the world prioritized the customers needs over their own by their own volition, but reality doesn’t work that way. That is why you need regulation, business is not always ethical.
“Never said it equaled it, I said it could lead to it.”
Same difference, the argument is invalid. They are completely unrelated.
“I was. It will reduce innovation and lead to the government controlling the internet.”
This isn’t being specific, this is being general. Here is being specific. Without net neutrality, ISPs can legally reduce or block access to rival services or providers without the customers being able to choose freely for themselves. That, will reduce innovation.
“…once we say it can control it a little bit, then its easy to say a little more…”
The same can be said in the opposite direction. ISPs could control more and more until you receive only what the ISPs decided you should.
“Second, what is wrong with commoditizing access?”
I don’t think there is anything wrong with paying to access the internet. But I do have a problem with them commoditizing the content of the internet. I don’t want ISPs deciding what websites I can visit like I don’t want my wireless carrier deciding what phone numbers I can call.
“First, it doesn’t let them explore different techniques of traffic management.”
This is a good point and the trickiest part. Unfortunately, network management is a double edged sword. What could be used for good could also be used for bad.
“What’s wrong with paying more for faster service?”
I already do. But how would you know if you are actually getting that “faster service” when the ISP could be throttling the content without your knowledge?
“VoIP traffic MUST have high priority over email traffic. Net Neutrality prevents that.”
What is priority is a matter of perspective. For a customer support center, this could easily be true. For other industries, fast transfers of large files could be the priority. So, allowing the ISPs to choose priority could benefit one user and detriment another. When I pay for 70Mbit internet, I want to be able to use up to 70Mbits/sec of whatever content I need or want.
“Because in this case it was a law written for telegraphs. Why should decisions made on how telegraphs operate affect how the internet operates?”
The second amendment was written for muskets, but is being applied to assault rifles today. Once again, if it is still relevant, it doesn’t matter what the original application was.
“Its clear, Net Neutrality is bad.”
That, it definitely false. There is nothing
“clear” about Net Neutrality.
“Same difference, the argument is invalid. They are completely unrelated.”
Nope, they are completely related. The argument is valid.
“This isn’t being specific, this is being general. Here is being specific. Without net neutrality, ISPs can legally reduce or block access to rival services or providers without the customers being able to choose freely for themselves. That, will reduce innovation.”
Again, I was just that specific, you just don’t like it. Here it is again: Witg net neutrality, ISPs cannot charge proper amounts for their services, cannot optimize for the customers, and the government will have control over the internet. That, will reduce innovation. Reducing or blocking access occurred rarely if at all before Net Neutrality, and will rarely if at all occur once its gone again. No innovation will be lost without it.
“The same can be said in the opposite direction. ISPs could control more and more until you receive only what the ISPs decided you should.”
And then customers will get another ISP. Then that ISP will go out of business. Unlike the government where there is only one.
“I don’t think there is anything wrong with paying to access the internet. But I do have a problem with them commoditizing the content of the internet. I don’t want ISPs deciding what websites I can visit like I don’t want my wireless carrier deciding what phone numbers I can call.”
And that’s a unfounded fear. It rarely if at all happened without Net Neutrality. It rarely if at all will happen with it. And even if it does, find a new ISP.
“This is a good point and the trickiest part. Unfortunately, network management is a double edged sword. What could be used for good could also be used for bad.”
Which is why we should let it up to the network engineers, companies, and free market to decide, instead of a a one policy fits all for the entire country.
“I already do. But how would you know if you are actually getting that “faster service” when the ISP could be throttling the content without your knowledge?”
There are plenty of ways to know, besides the companies telling you.
“What is priority is a matter of perspective. For a customer support center, this could easily be true. For other industries, fast transfers of large files could be the priority. So, allowing the ISPs to choose priority could benefit one user and detriment another.”
And letting the government preventing them from making any decision could be the exact same.
“When I pay for 70Mbit internet, I want to be able to use up to 70Mbits/sec of whatever content I need or want.”
No Net Neutrality will change that. Because there are constraints on bandwidth from your connection to the servers, a decision will have to be made somewhere. So you will see slowdowns regardless. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can optimize for their customers. So either another user downloading via BitTorrent makes your Netflix streaming slow, or it doesn’t. The former is Net Neutrality, the later isn’t.
“The second amendment was written for muskets, but is being applied to assault rifles today. Once again, if it is still relevant, it doesn’t matter what the original application was.”
First the Second Amendment only has 27 words, and its meaning was clear and broad. The law Net Neutrality was based on was written with many many many more words, specifically for telegraphs. And that is not longer relevant. So it does matter in this case.
Net Neutrality is me being able to view whatever site I wish on the bandwidth I’m paying for. Transit fees can help an ISP improve a network, sure, but raise your hand if you actually think the money won’t just go into CEO pockets. The fact is ISPs have been expanding their networks just fine over the last few years of Net Neutrality being in place — Cox has been dropping fiber all over my area here in Oklahoma City. So, the argument the ISPs can’t innovate or operate with Net Neutrality in place is false.
Services and sites having to pay tolls to get into various networks risks several networks not having certain services, and that directly affects me as a customer paying for access.
I would be less worried if there was real competition among ISPs, but the fact is most municipalities have a limited number of choices if they even have more than one. (My choice here is Cox Cable or AT&T DSL — not much of a choice really for my needs.) The big ISPs even sue cities who put in municipal networks because they want little mini monopolies all around instead of having to compete like normal companies.
And if they play nasty on that level, why does anyone think they’ll be fair and just when Net Neutrality allows them to block services in preference of those who pay the highest gateway fee or of their own services.
“And [ISPs deciding what you can get is] a unfounded fear. It rarely if at all happened without Net Neutrality. It rarely if at all will happen with it. And even if it does, find a new ISP.”
Not true. Here’s just one case:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/
There are plenty more. People reaching their caps are being manipulated to use the ISP’s service over their own choice. We pay for access; not for a personal nanny.
As for the comment to just find a new ISP, that’s really myopic. Most areas only have one or two choices due to municipal agreements and laws. In my case, the choice is between Cox cable or AT&T DSL, and for my work and play, DSL just doesn’t cut it. I effectively have no choice.
Luckily Cox has a huge bandwidth cap and doesn’t appear to play Verizon’s and others’ gateway toll and service preference games; and they’ve been expanding very well even with the limited Net Neutrality rules in place the last few years — again putting the lie to your statements.
<
blockquote>Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj293d:
On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
!mj293d:
➽➽
➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash293ShopOnlineGetPay$97Hour… ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj293d..,……
time to repost this classic, explaining why net neutrality is an old concept and a good thing.
let me paste you a little story about net neutrality:
Think about Netflix. It has unlimited streaming movies now. Comcast has streaming movies too, at $4 per movie. What if Comcast tells Netflix “unless you pay us the equivalent of $20/user per month we are going to put you in the slow lane and your users won’t be able to stream.” Netflix’s streaming business will be crushed. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want Congress to allow them to do exactly that, and this is why net neutrality legislation is so important.
This isn’t a result of a fertile imagination. This actually happened 100 years ago. Imagine the year is 1900. I run a steel company and you run a railroad. I sell steel for $50 per ton and you ship it for $3 per ton. I have two major competitors. I come to you and offer you $10 per ton for shipping if you agree not to carry steel for the other two. That number will give you far more profit for far less effort so you say yes. You’re happy. My two competitors cannot move steel from Pittsburgh to Kansas any other way (what, by horse and wagon?) so they go out of business, or a least their business is limited to local purchasers.
Then I raise my steel price from $50 per ton to $75. The steel buyers have to pay because they have no other choice. The competition is gone. I make huge profits. I’m happy. You make huge profits. You’re happy. The consumers and my competitors aren’t happy, but who gives a flying f*** about them?
This is the history of the railroad business in the late 1800s. This scenario played out again in the 1920s in trucking. Both times Congress mandated that any shipping company must charge identical amounts for all customers, based only on size, weight, and transit time.
We have 100 years of success with net neutrality. It’s working pretty well.
…did commercial railcars vanish into antiquity? the trucking industry? nope, both are alive and profitable today.
This.
Well, it appears to all boil down to this. You clearly have a lot of faith that ISPs will be ethical and do the right thing for their customers, all the time. And when they don’t the free market will fix itself. All a valid and enviable belief.
I however, do not share that opinion, I see ISPs being in a near monopoly situation where consumer choice is not always an option and the lack of net neutrality rules will allow ISP to legally take advantage of their customers.
Some companies are honest and upstanding, others are not. When you live in an area with only one ISP, you better hope they are honest, because there is no recourse if they aren’t.
BINGO!
Excellent comment. Thanks.
“its government control of the internet and the companies that run it. That’s always bad, and always leads to bad things”
There’s a difference between “control” and regulation. I’m all for regulation and I would think you would be too.
Regulation doesn’t reduce innovation or competition and there are many industries, regulated by the government that prove this.
Regulation isn’t perfect and should always be updated to reflect current reality but having no regulations can be a problem (read the post below about steel and railroads).
Yes, I do have believe the ISPs will be ethical, and certainly way more ethical than the government. I don’t believe it will be all the time, because ISPs are made of people, and they are human. However I believe the past two statements because of market forces. An ISP that is not ethical and does not to the right thing will be punished in the marketplace. A government that is not ethical and does not to the right thing has little to stop it.
You see the same problem as I do, that ISPs have limited competition. You’d rather the government regulate the problem, similarly to a doctor only proscribing pain meds for a broken femur.
I’d prefer to increase the competition, similarly to a doctor setting the femur, placing in a cast, and letting the body heal itself. There are plenty of regulations requiring cable monopolies in areas, inhibiting rights of way, and making it difficult to start and ISP. I want to remove those, and fix the problem.
Actually there is little different between control and regulation. They are the same thing. Regulating them means you control what you are regulating.
Regulation absolutely reduces innovation and competition. It makes it harder to take paths because they are prohibited by those regulations (even as an unintended consequence), and it reduces competition because the barriers for entry are higher, both because of regulations and also the cost of complying with those regulations. There are many industries that that prove this, and no industries that prove the opposite.
The steel and railroads are a poor example, which I will explain below.
First, Netflix has already admitting the lost of Net Neutrality will not affect their business. Because they have built relationships with the companies that will prevent exactly what you say. Second, even if they did what you proposed, consumers would be pissed at the ISPs. People would drop them and go with a difference ISP. So that’s a very poor example.
Your steel/railroad example is also poor. First, by 1900 government regulations prevented entry into the railroads as they were heavily regulated by the Interstate Commerce act of 1887. Second, railroads were already regulated and subsidized prior to that point anyway.
Third, lets remove the previous two facts so that we aren’t affected by the government hampering the free market. in your example, even if that happens that they unilaterally raise the price from where it was unprofitable to move it via a different method, it actually might now be profitable for another company to ship it via another method, or to build their own railroad (remember the regulations hampering entry are gone). So another company comes in an undercuts they unilateral price increase, gets customers, and the other company now must reduce their price. So now we have a situation were there are a bunch of steel mils, two ways to ship, prices are back down, and everybody is happy.
Or we just have prices high, only one way to ship (which will be terrible because there is no competition), and government regulation on all of it making it worse.
The solution is clear- let the free market do its thing. People will figure out ways around anything unjust if allowed too.