Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:37 pm UTC

bantler wrote:The entire issue will be moot soon enough.
Some Google/Musk Philanthropists/Assholes will eventually figure out how to beam free-internet over the earth.
Well, memetically, Elon would be the ideal one to follow up on Nikola's free utility dreams…

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:10 pm UTC

My money's on Google. Billionaires hate plumbing issues.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:04 am UTC

bantler wrote:Some Google/Musk Philanthropists/Assholes will eventually figure out how to beam free-internet over the earth.
But... free internet is the problem. He who pays the piper....

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3260
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:43 am UTC

ucim wrote:But... free internet is the problem. He who pays the piper....

Ideally it would be taxpayer funded, free at the point of use, like access to clean water, healthcare, legal aid etc.

Unfortunately that would be evil pinko commieism though :/

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:57 am UTC

elasto wrote:Unfortunately that would be evil pinko commieism though :/
Yeah. Like the public lieberries. :)

However, in all seriousness, one does have to consider the fate of government-run things under seriously dysfunctional (or hostile) governments, the same way one must consider the fate of commercially run things under hostile commercial entities. A year or so ago this would have been theoretical; we now have an experiment underway. If internet access were government-run, how would it likely play out under present conditions?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:11 am UTC

If internet access were government-run, it would be by municipal governments, not the federal government, because the problem is in the last mile, not the backbones. So problems with the current federal government don't really factor into it.

Municipality-owned last-mile wiring accessible to a variety of competing service providers would go a long way to solving all the problems in a very free-market sort of way, returning us to more or less what we had (business-wise) in the dialup days, when the phone lines were common carriers (still privately owned, but heavily regulated) and any of a number of local ISPs could offer you internet service over those lines.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:30 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:because the problem is in the last mile, not the backbones.
Is it? The problem (wrt net nutrasweet) is that large players can make deals with other large players to give preference to some bits over other bits. Seems the backbones can easily factor into it. Disney can preferentially feed movies to Verizon, if Verizon pays enough. It's up to Verizon to do the last mile, but it can't do anything if it doesn't have the data to begin with.

But yeah, if it's local governments in charge, Disney would have to make deals with the city council (or perhaps the state senate). Might work better, since the incentives wouldn't be there.

How would mobile factor in?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2751
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:26 am UTC

(Various) Local government influence(s) could be as bad as national/global government control. J.D. ("Boss") Hogg in charge of your final country-mile of Hazzard County InternetCo? Or the influence of Omni Consumer Products over Detroit's city-wide infrastructure? Dr Raymond Cocteau of San Angeles?

(Quid portscanniet ipsos portscannes? Always the problem, of course. Choose you enemy.)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:18 pm UTC

Why do you think Google would provide net-neutral internet? What about their business practices convinces you they won't promote their own content and control above all others?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Why do you think Google would provide net-neutral internet? What about their business practices convinces you they won't promote their own content and control above all others?



They very well might.
But they are also have the leverage to prevent other businesses from stifling their content by just giving away neutral-service.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:11 pm UTC

I'm sure the railroad analogy has been beaten to death elsewhere, but it's a reasonable comparison.

If a private-company builds an infrastructure, it's reasonable to expect the company to attempt to maximize their profits by catering to bigger customers with faster or cheaper service. Whether or not the government should have granted rights or should rescind/socialize the infrastructure is a completed different question. The train has left the station.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:14 pm UTC

bantler wrote:
Zohar wrote:Why do you think Google would provide net-neutral internet? What about their business practices convinces you they won't promote their own content and control above all others?



They very well might.
But they are also have the leverage to prevent other businesses from stifling their content by just giving away neutral-service.

Emphasis mine. Google isn't interested in promoting Facebook or Amazon. They'll have to, to an extent, but this is in no way a magic solution. Government regulation is what will solve this, not another giant corporate entity.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:32 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:Government regulation is what will solve this, not another giant corporate entity.


Your faith in Government efficiency is astounding. It's like you've never ridden a bus, driven on a road or met a public official.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:16 pm UTC

I have, in fact, done all those things. I see three ways to deal with net neutrality issues:
1. Don't. Just lose it and become a world controlled entirely to the benefit of big corporations (or just avoid the internet entirely - good luck).
2. Hope/expect corporations to not do it. We have loads of evidence from the past they will control traffic flow to their advantage, to the detriment of competition, innovation, and consumers' interests. Consumers can't boycott or complain because the vast majority don't have alternatives for online access and if there are options - they're usually between giant corporations that agree on this use.
3. Use the solution that has magically worked wonders before but for some reason you think is hopeless - government regulation.

I'm not sure what other options exist. Do you see a different option? What do you disagree with?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby SuicideJunkie » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:55 pm UTC

Delivery of standard commodities like water and electricity work quite well in most places. The byte tubes don't seem to be much different.
As long as humans don't have to touch the thing being transported, it works.

Buses, cars, and government buildings on the other hand, are inherently infested with us overdressed apes.

speising
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutella in 2018

Postby speising » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:02 pm UTC

i'm just happy to live in a first world country where i can choose between probably about 30 internet providers, cable, DSL or mobile. if some of them ever start to shape their traffic here, i have some hopes that other ISP's will make it a point to pledge neutrality.

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby bantler » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:23 pm UTC

I don't actually hope for a solution, but I expect technology to solve itself. It won't be long before standard processing-speed and accessible-bandwidth will eclipse any effort to add speed or data limits for usage.

In a tech-war between Comcast and Apple/Google/Microsoft, I'm betting on the latter.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:35 pm UTC

bantler wrote:I expect technology to solve itself
"Technology" has no interest in what is users want, nor does it care who its "users" are. If you're not the customer, you're the product.
bantler wrote:It won't be long before standard processing-speed and accessible-bandwidth will eclipse any effort to add speed or data limits for usage.
It won't be long before more "enhanced" content will use up all these limits.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:46 pm UTC

bantler wrote:I don't actually hope for a solution, but I expect technology to solve itself. It won't be long before standard processing-speed and accessible-bandwidth will eclipse any effort to add speed or data limits for usage.

The problem isn't technology - most people have theoretical access to 10Mbps and higher speeds, and that's more than enough for 3 screens streaming 4K video at the same time. The problem is you'll be artificially throttled to lower speeds. How will "extra technology" solve that?

In a tech-war between Comcast and Apple/Google/Microsoft, I'm betting on the latter.

What makes you think Apple/Google/Microsoft have any of your interests at heart? Why would they be fighting for you? Why wouldn't they cooperate with everyone else in order to maximize their profit i.e. how much you're spending? Why do you think Comcast isn't busy fighting AT&T? It's because they've agreed with each other how to screw us over instead of each other.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9276
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:25 pm UTC

I'd trust Microsoft over Apple or Comcast, and Google over Microsoft. Apple and Comcast are the devil, Microsoft are more assholes than evil, and Google is more like the supervillian that took over the world but is saying "ok, now what?"

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:54 am UTC

Google is a B word and their mods look the other way. Anyways, I don't even know what 'net neutrality is so lemme... Google? ... it? Ha-ha. OH so that's it. Okay, well, it's a good idea on paper, but as with other anti-discrimination laws actually enforcing it is a nightmare and a half. These companies have enough monies to give anyone that tries to treat data on the 'net fairly lawsuits for years. I actually expect that no one would ever implement such a policy because it just won't work. People want monies and to live with their monies they don't wanna have fairness.
Last edited by Ginger on Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:35 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Charlie Puth wrote:I'll admit I was wrong what else can I say girl? Can't you blame my head and not my heart?


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:23 pm UTC

Except we've had net neutrality for a long time few years now and it was not being a problem, and in fact it requires far more than less work on the isp side to be net neutral. Also it doesn't have anything to do with discrimination.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:41 pm UTC

Wikipedia article wrote:Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication. For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.

Wikipedia said it was about ensuring 'net providers don't unfairly, DISCRIMINATE, by: Charging more for certain data, or slowing down your speeds until you pay up, or saying your favorite website is now property of a mega-corporation? Sounds like anti-discrimination laws to me. And thank you for telling me that it was in effect now I had no ideas. Ha-ha.
Last edited by Ginger on Sun Jan 21, 2018 4:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Charlie Puth wrote:I'll admit I was wrong what else can I say girl? Can't you blame my head and not my heart?


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

idonno
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby idonno » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:43 pm UTC

Ginger wrote: actually enforcing it is a nightmare and a half.

Not really. if an ISP wants to charge Netflix money for better access to its customers, they have to actually ask Netflix for money. If this isn't legal, as soon as they make the request, Netflix can just take them to court.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1009
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Neutrality in 2017

Postby Ginger » Sat Jan 20, 2018 6:52 pm UTC

Courts are not fair, they don't want to hear how people mistreated other people w/o, like, years... of documentation meticulously. And who got time to record Everything an ISP might do to get money out of Netflix? Like, intimidate them over the phone, or say, "You Better give us money right now." I don't know I'm not a lawyer. But I don't think courts are fair about fairness cases and make every single one a he said she said style case. AFTER Being told my examples in the thread of REAL ACTUAL articles I quoted were irrelevant and inappropriate, told I'm wrong about 'net neutrality when it was EXACTLY anti-discrimination laws, and that my examples of what companies might to do extort monies out of Netflix are not welcome in the thread... I give y'all ladylike curtsies everywhere and I'm out. Please no one quote me and harass me to tempt me back in or else I might end up banned from here too and that would break my heart so, so much. </3 Corrected titles' spelling errors w/a change to my post.
Charlie Puth wrote:I'll admit I was wrong what else can I say girl? Can't you blame my head and not my heart?


O-Ren Ishii wrote:Look at me Boss Matsumoto... look at my eyes. Do they look like the eyes of someone you killed?

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Ranbot » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:05 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
bantler wrote:The entire issue will be moot soon enough.
Some Google/Musk Philanthropists/Assholes will eventually figure out how to beam free-internet over the earth.
Well, memetically, Elon would be the ideal one to follow up on Nikola's free utility dreams…

elasto wrote:
ucim wrote:But... free internet is the problem. He who pays the piper....

Ideally it would be taxpayer funded,
Unfortunately that would be evil pinko commieism though :/


GPS service is a good example of a US-government run satellite-based system that the entire world benefits from at no charge. The global infrastructure and business benefits of providing GPS outweigh the effort of restricting it. A basic internet service might be similarly justified if the political will was there.

User avatar
Ranbot
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutter-Butter in 2017, wait 2018

Postby Ranbot » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:34 pm UTC

I think most people here are in agreement that striking down previous net neutrality laws was probably a bad thing. I was thinking though... the current ISP business model of virtually unlimited internet access for a flat connection fee probably is not a very good one for public needs today. Right now, someone who only has internet access for email and basic web browsing pays generally the same amount as someone who is streaming Netflix on multiple screens, mining for Bitcoins, hosting Torrent servers etc. The low-internet users supplement the power users. Also, the unlimited data business model makes ISPs very vulnerable to unpredictable technology changes that hog bandwidth/data, so it's reasonable they would want to control that unpredictability, or create alternative revenue streams [like content creation] to offset those costs. Old net-neutrality rules block them from that though. If ISPs had a business model that could pass the data cost along to consumers in a more easily scalable manner, but also maintain the regulatory wall between ISPs and content creation, wouldn't that address the concerns of the ISPs, the public, and tech/content companies?

Thankfully we already have that business model... it's basically how mobile data is charged or any household utility (electric, gas, water, etc.). We would just have to install the regulatory wall between ISPs and content they transmit.

Effects:
-ISPs have some protection from disrupting technologies that stress their systems.
-ISPs have a more predictable business model that scales better with technology.
-ISPs aren't involved or benefit from content creation, which reduces the ISPs' incentives for anti-consumer tactics and monopolistic growth
-The innovative and fast moving tech sector continues to lead development of new internet technologies and content.
-Customers are already familiar with paying for other services in a similar manner.
-Low-data and high-data users would pay an amount that more closely resembles their actual useage. (i.e. like any utility)
-ISPs could change data rates depending on the time of day to encourage off-peak use, like electric companies do.
-When consumers see the impact of high data use in their monthly bill, they may put pressure on tech/content providers to design their services better to use data more efficiently, which helps everyone, like how appliance manufacturers try to get good Energy Star ratings. Netflix customers don't need a nearly instantaneous HD stream, but Netflix has little financial incentive to build in more buffering, better compression, or off-peak pre-downloading in the current unlimited home data business model.
-This business model means ISPs look more a public utility and they vehemently oppose that classification.
Spoiler:
In my personal opinion, it's far past the time to end the charade that ISPs are not a public utility. Call a spade a spade and move on.


Thoughts?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7731
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby Zohar » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:03 pm UTC

Nothing in the old net neutrality rules said ISPs can't charge by data used. All ISPs have a fair usage policy at the very least whereby if you use more than X amount of GB per month you'll get throttled (it's usually set so high no reasonable user would meet that limit, but someone who's using their connection to tether multiple households will get detected). I'm sure some ISPs have low-internet packages where they provide you 1 GB per month.

The point of net neutrality isn't that ISPs have to accommodate any data volume for a low price. It's that if I use up 50GB from a provider, the ISP isn't allowed to artificially lower the speed I'm downloading based on who I'm getting it from (i.e. even if my company owns Hulu I have to provide you Netflix at the same speed, even though they're my competitors). Nothing in there states you can't have different pricing for different data volumes.

And the fact of the matter is - there is almost no cost associated with internet access these days. Sure they could charge $10 from the 1GB plan and $70 for the unlimited plan, but in practice one doesn't cost them much more than the other.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby ucim » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:50 pm UTC

Ranbot wrote:the current ISP business model of virtually unlimited internet access for a flat connection fee probably is not a very good one for public needs today. Right now, someone who only has internet access for email and basic web browsing pays generally the same amount as someone who is streaming... The low-internet users supplement[sic] the power users
First, this is not relevant to net neutrality. Net neutrality has nothing to do with costs. It has to do with content. And secondly, internet bandwidth is cheap enough that the subsidizing (I think that's the word you meant) is not a big deal. Sure, it could be cheaper, but that's not the issue.

Ranbot wrote:Thankfully we already have that business model... it's basically how mobile data is charged...
Oh... you mean the model where cellphone companies charge 25c per text (or make you buy a plan), when texts use an unimaginably small amount of otherwise unused bandwidth compared to actual voice calls? Yeah, that's good for the public (as long as the public owns stock in the cell company).

Net neutrality is the idea that an ISP can't favor one brand of data over another. It prevents them from offering "half the internet at one tenth the cost", where they get to pick which half of the internet you are permitted to interact with. And again, understand it's not about cost (that's just the way they steer customers). It's about them choosing which part of the internet you get.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3260
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about Net Nutrality in 2017

Postby elasto » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:02 pm UTC

Yeah, if the phone companies had their way there'd be no such thing as VOIP. Thankfully the free market works just well enough that they didn't manage to squash it, but there is more competition between mobile providers than broadband.

Instead of removing the requirement for ISPs to obey net neutrality it should have been extended to mobile providers too. There's no telling what future innovation like VOIP might now be strangled at birth...


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests