End of net neutrality

jalimon said:

What is you take on the decision taken by the US Federal Communication Commission to vote an end to net neutrality?

Click to expand...

I agree with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

In sum, if you loved FCC regulated telephone service as provided by Ma Bell in the 20th Century, then you would love an FCC regulated Internet of the 21st Century. No Thanks! The Internet has grown and prospered with only very light regulation from the federal government. It should stay that way. "Net neutrality" is one of those ideas that sounds good in theory (like a lot of left wing ideas) but it would not work well at all in practice.

By The Editorial Board

Dec. 14, 2017 726 COMMENTS

Disney’s deal announced Thursday to buy some premium 21st Century Fox properties for $52.4 billion underscores how technology is remaking the media landscape. This discomfits some, but the Federal Communications Commission is right to let markets steer competition and innovation.

The FCC on Thursday voted 3-2 to approve chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal “net neutrality” rules backed by the Obama Administration that reclassified internet-service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II prohibits “any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”
By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman Tom Wheeler turned the FCC into a political gatekeeper. The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr. Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies.

But as always in politics, treatment under the rules would depend on ideology and partisanship. Even as liberals howl that the Justice Department’s lawsuit to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner is motivated by President Trump’s animus to CNN, they want FCC control over the internet. The left’s outcry at Mr. Pai “killing” internet freedom has been so overwrought that the FCC meeting room had to be cleared Thursday for a security threat.

Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldn’t allow. This has throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free?

Mr. Pai’s rules would require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab.
***

Mr. Pai’s net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.

Disney is buying the 21st Century Fox assets to compete with Netflix and other streaming services, build leverage with cable companies and establish a global footprint. Netflix has more than 47 million international subscribers and streams in nearly every country. Fox (which shares the Murdoch family’s ownership with our parent company, News Corp.) will keep its news and main sports channels, which can offer “live” content to consumers. The antitrust concerns should be negligible.

Consumers will also benefit from the slow breakdown of the cable monopoly as they customize “bundles” like Hulu or a Disney stream that may cost less. Americans will also enjoy new distribution options, which could have been barred by the net-neutrality rules.

This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&T’s DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America.


Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation, which Ajit Pai’s FCC has recognized by taking a neutral position and restoring the promise of internet freedom.

America has seen a major shift to right-wing conservatism and the removal of net neutrality is an example of this. They want to deregulate the rich and the corporations while adding more and more regulations on the working class.

Net neutrality policies helped create the most free and fair marketplace in history, allowing consumers to choose the winners and losers in a competitive marketplace. This resulted in the best ideas, products and services rising to top.

The new regulations will leave consumers with less choice and our economy with less innovation and competition. Without equality of access, such innovation would be diminished at best, or perhaps even begin to move to competing countries in the world economy. The new FCC regulations set the cable and phone companies up to become the equivalent of the mafia to the Internet. Today, consumers dictate the evolution of the Internet. Under the new regulations, cable and phone companies will be making the decisions. And their decisions will not be made based on quality, but rather on who pays the most "protection money" to be protected from the competition of a truly free marketplace.

The Internet currently provides a megaphone for political expression by virtue of the fact that every site, no matter how obscure, is just as accessible to every individual as any site with a multi-million dollar budget. Every American has the opportunity to create their own site and say what they want to the entire world.

Under the new rules, there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from now allowing consumers to have access to speech that they do not support. What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it does not like a pro-life organization using its high speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, this could happen and it would be legal!

Allowing Internet service providers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success. But such things have already began.

1) In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival web-based phone service

Given that most Americans have just one (or at most, two) companies through which they can get broadband access, the free market principle of competition for consumer dollars doesn't enter the picture, just like the old Ma-Bell monopoly. Much like the trade-off involved in allowing a telephone monopoly was that the company had to provide equality of service, so too should it be with the Internet duopoly.

Consumers that are already paying monthly fees for broadband access will soon find out they do not actually have what they thought they were paying for. Americans will not have broadband access to the entire Internet, just the part that the cable and phone companies allow them to see.

Congress has wisely decided many times in the past to avoid stunting the growth of the Internet via new taxation. They should follow the same logic in this case and not allow the cable and phone companies to stunt its growth with new fees and content based discrimination. In the end, the losers will be consumers. This is Corporatism at its finest where corporations are controlling and regulating everything and the suppression of freedom of speech. By removing regulation, the FCC in essence has created an internet for the elite and rich. So the question is why the FCC is removing this regulation? The short answer is that corporate interests are using their extensive influence to promote an internet for the elites. Rather than accessing internet content as you see fit, you might have to purchase bundles of services and sites set by the opaque decisions of unaccountable for-profit firms. Imagine, for example, that you're surfing online, and someone sends you a link to a hilarious cat video. When you click on it, you get a message from your internet provider: "We are sorry, but you do not have access to Web Video Service. Would you like to add it to your plan for $9.99 a month?" While these corporations are supposed to serve the function of a public utility, they clearly exist to serve the interests of their elite shareholders and executives -- pursuing lax regulations and maximum profit rather than transparency or consumer choice.

So the question is why would any sane person would want to live under an oligarchy (corporatism)? Luckily we live in Canada that is not yet taken over by the conservatives and we still have some freedom so hopefully net neutrality will remain. But I am certain that if a Conservative gets into power in Canada say good by to net neutrality.

Like most of you, I don't think putting an end to net neutrality is such a great idea. That being said, there's a few reasons why I can see this happening.

1. Government regulations. Most of the time I believe they screw up when they regulate an industry. But net neutrality wasn't one of them. If they wanted to deregulate it, it could just be about cutting costs somewhere. I don't know if you've noticed but US and Canadian government have been trying to relinquish responsibilities as much as possible in order to handle only things that bring in money. Sucks but at the end of the day, the government is no different than a public company, a badly managed one.

2. Competition. This one is theoretical. The point of letting the net float is to optimize demand and supply. The issue is there's not enough supply which basically creates a shit show. Remember the people working in government apply theoretical principals in real life not practical ones (you know "based on small biased sample" approach). In an ideal world, we'd have thousands/millions of small businesses providing broadband service and competing against each other to bring the cost of broadband even lower. The issue here is most small businesses can't do that because the cost of operating a broadband operation is too prohibitive if you don't have starting capital. Try asking Bell how much they'll lease you part of their spectrum and you'll see what I mean.

Regarding the fast lane/slow lane example, it would theoretically be illegal for ISPs to throttle the connection. One thing that comes to mind when it comes to throttling broadband: the great firewall of China. The Chinese government literally banned several Western sites from the country. The right to connect is a basic human right according to the UN. China is not part of the UN but the US is. The ISPs would open themselves up for human rights lawsuits that'd end up costing them millions in legal fees.

I'm not for ending net neutrality but we live in a capitalist society. So if there's money to be made, someone is going to make it happen. Just my two cents.

I do not understamnd what you all are saying!

First, do you trust high gov't (political) regulation? The record to me is bad. Actually better but not perfect with right-leaning govt than left. Still, zero govt regulation is better.

"NET NEUTRALITY" was always a lie. What they really wanted was govt control. And there pay me money so my political friends will tweak the regs for you.

The govt laws against bad behavior (anti-cometitive) are still there. Was the govt ever in a position to enforce them? For sure, they did not always do it.

The people have a choice.

The lack of these regs does NOT stop freedom. On the contrary, it enhances freedom. And ensures more innovation.

The higher transparency is good. The fact that we can talk about bad cases is good. Few vendors will do crazy things. The PR is just too bad.

Now, what is better for people "in the sticks"? Innovation and competition, not regulation, will bring them better and faster internet sooner. Regulations do not.

Will a few people do some "bad" things? Well, for the 14 years before the Obama regs, how bad were things? There were a few cases. Nothing major. There are bad people in the world. But there are as many or MORE bad people in govt as anywhere else. This fantasy that govt regulation is gonna protect you much is crazy. Now, for sure, if one of these vendors does something crazy, then Congress will slap them down at some point. I do NOT look for that to happen.

Were the prior 14 years so bad?

The WSJ talks about the lack of investment -- or less investment. This is TRUE, very true. Although hard to measure. If you have an inside track on the regulators and can control the regulation to protect yourself from competition, then you might invest more. But most investors want to own and control their investment. (Don't you?) Do they not have a right to freedom too? And then, if they do, they are always willing to invest more.

Can the FCC regulate (half-well) I fast changing high-technology business where "what is competition" is changing every year? NO!!!!!

So, wait to see some small things you do not like. Complain about them. That will be FAR more effective overall that having those stupid regs.

Sorry! I know a bit about this. Got a bit excited. Capitalism has been very very good to us (not without some small costs)...we do well to respect the miracle of freedom. (Freedom does mean that people can act badly -- BUT mostly -- by a far % -- they do not.) We do not NOT need the Kremlin to "control" us! Or "protect" us. (No, I am not advocating zero regulation. But a LOT less than now.)

Thanks!

harwell1960,

So you think corporate control is better then government control? Corporations will control what you can see so they can make profits. As for government control I never saw any signs that the internet was being controlled by the government. But thanks to the right-wing conservatives/republicans not only is it being controlled by the greedy corporations it is now being controlled to enforce backwards social conservatism and cheap moralism like SESTA and FOSTA. Capitalism has turned into Corporatism and slowly going to an oligarchy.

And what exactly does this article have to do with net neutrality?

Speaking of net neutrality, there was more discussion of it in a different thread.

That is up to you, of course. They are two totally different subjects.

jalimon said:

True I should change the thread tittle to end of net neutrality and privacy maybe?

Click to expand...

And while you are at it, perhaps you could also request that STN change the title of his thread to "Climate change and Oscars".