FCC plan would give Internet providers power to decide how you use your internet

[Yojimbo]

Apparently during the open comments portion of debating this rule change, thousands of “concerned citizens” against net neutrality were either fake or stolen identities.

https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a

[Vas Deferens]

(11-22-2017, 05:32 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Apparently during the open comments portion of debating this rule change, thousands of “concerned citizens” against net neutrality were either fake or stolen identities.

https://medium.com/@AGSchneiderman/an-open-letter-to-the-fcc-b867a763850a

Thousands of deceased people were staunchly against an open and free internet. Amazing the repubs dear daddy didn't have a stroke over that considering the shit fit he threw over 'illegal' voters in the past.

A vast swath of our ignorant population could have been rallied against net neutrality by saying it's an Obamacare policy. Unfortunately many of these uninformed morons don't even have enough access to the web in order to voice their ineligible concerns. This is a new low for the GOP.

[Vas Deferens]

Yet to here a coherent explanation from a trump supporter as to why this plan Makes America Great Again. Ignorance is bliss.

[Au165]

When people realize they have to pay to get internet, then pay again for premium websites, then pay again at the website level to access the content from the website owners......That is when people will actually understand what is going on.

[Belsnickel]

Internet should be a public utility.

[*jason*]

(12-01-2017, 03:11 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yet to here a coherent explanation from a trump supporter as to why this plan Makes America Great Again. Ignorance is bliss.

America was great when there was no internet, and everyone mined coal, built automobiles, and farmed.

[Au165]

(12-01-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Internet should be a public utility.

Bingo, this is an issue. It's archaic to believe that telephones are more important to the public infrastructure than the internet in today's world.

[Benton]

(12-01-2017, 12:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: When people realize they have to pay to get internet, then pay again for premium websites, then pay again at the website level to access the content from the website owners......That is when people will actually understand what is going on.

That, I think, is the direction most sites are going. I know media is. Most of the new models that are succeeding rely on little to no advertising, they're subscription based services. And that's carrying over in other areas (Netflix, Spotify, etc). But part of what makes those sites able to charge a low fee is that they can keep operating costs low by not having to pay providers ATT or Comcast. 

If the administration moves forward with plans, it's going to be a pretty big hit to lots of existing companies and will be prohibitive for startups. But established giant networks will be cashing in.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2017, 12:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: When people realize they have to pay to get internet, then pay again for premium websites, then pay again at the website level to access the content from the website owners......That is when people will actually understand what is going on.

And it will be too late by then. Any dissenting views will be blocked by the providers.

Sure wish there was a daddy loving GOPer around here that could explain why this makes sense to my feeble liberal brain. Anybody? The blood is on your hands.

[JustWinBaby]

CageTheBengal Wrote:Not true. ISPs wanted to and have controlled how much bandwidth flows based upon population.

Net neutrality says little to nothing about network optimization. Does it need defining? Probably, but the NN regulations never addressed it clearly or effectively.

CageTheBengal Wrote:if Comcast decided to reduce speeds or cut off access all together to their content to hurt their competitor. Is it 100% sure going to happen? No but that doesn't mean setting up the groundwork for that to happen is a smart move.

This HAS happened, with Verizon and apps and another company trying to favor their own ondemand video services. Both were slapped and fined by EXISTING FCC regulations.

CageTheBengal Wrote:Maybe because say a company like Comcast might want to discriminate against a competitor like Netflix.

I knew this would come up or was behind some of the thinking. That case has been widely misunderstood by NN advocates. It was little more than the politics over whether Netflix or the ISP's should pay for infrastructure upgrades to support Netflix bandwidth demands. It was actually more than that, but not a NN issue. Netflix pays for bandwidth, and just like any other company/transaction fees for service requirements are negotiable. It only becomes a NN issue when service and rates offered to Netflix aren't available to others. Incidentally, it's a deal that improves service FOR EVERYONE by breaking bottlenecks (so pretty much the opposite of NN concerns). The pissing contest about who should pay had nothing to do with NN.

CageTheBengal Wrote:What do you find appealing about letting ISPs make the rules they get to play by?

I don't find anything appealing about it. I just don't see where it is or has been necessary given existing laws and regulations. What it really comes down to is a lack of competition, but now you're talking an issue separate and distinct from NN.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-22-2017, 01:47 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Yes.  Because the internet is not evolving.

Trying to effectively legislate and regulate problems unknown and not occurring is flat stupid.  People don't seem to realize how heavily the FTC and FCC already regulate the internet....which is why a lot of concerns people mention necessitating NN rules HAVE happened and HAVE been dealt with effectively by existing laws. 

[JustWinBaby]

(11-22-2017, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But part of me realizes that many cable companies are geographic monopolies and consumers often have no choice.

Bingo.  It's a competition issue, and more directly one potentially of monopoly price gouging.  I'm kind of shocked the AT&T acquisition of DirectTv was approved, but the competition and substitutes is viewed more broadly which is why the merger went thru.

But in many areas, satellite tv & internet is widely available.  It generally costs a bit more.  Cell service has competitive speeds, but price quite a bit higher (but likely coming down with 5G and additional spectrum being made available).

The other concerning play - which again could easily be rejected by the FCC and FTC - is the acquisition of CONTENT.  This brings up the mirror image of favoring access/NN, in that some could choose simply to offer the content only on their services.  It's a gray area, as currently every content provider has separate deals with every ondemand service (and, in some cases, no agreement could be reached).

[JustWinBaby]

(12-01-2017, 01:12 PM)Benton Wrote: That, I think, is the direction most sites are going. I know media is. Most of the new models that are succeeding rely on little to no advertising, they're subscription based services. And that's carrying over in other areas (Netflix, Spotify, etc). But part of what makes those sites able to charge a low fee is that they can keep operating costs low by not having to pay providers ATT or Comcast. 

They absolutely pay bandwidth fees.  Netflix price to stream a movie has actually dropped from 5 PENNIES to 2.5.  The bulk of their costs - and the price you pay - is actually for content.  Spotify distributes like 70% of it's money in royalties based on play counts, and the other 30% is their revenue.  Theoretically, if people double how many songs they play on Spotify, Spotify will take a bit of a hit for bandwidth costs (but we are talking 1GB of music = @7 hours, which costs them like 3 pennies, or a 1% hit to margins).

For content providers, there are basically 3 models - advertising, subscription or a mix.  I don't see how NN could or should change that.

The concern about a layer of "middle man" fees where the ISP charges you to access certain cites is a non-starter, IMO.  These are national deals, and if Comcast tried to paywall HBO, for example, HBO probably says "screw you" and hurts Comcast massively because Comcast DOES have significant competition in many markets.

[Au165]

Here is a counter point to net neutrality, what if the larger websites in turn denied access to their sites from certain ISPs? Could you imagine the mass exodus from Comcast if Netflix announced they would no longer allow Comcast customers to use netflix? Turnabout is fair play right? Companies like Netflix could turn this against ISPs and start favoring ISPs, driving more users to those ISPs that aren't being dicks about this.

[Benton]

(12-01-2017, 02:44 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: They absolutely pay bandwidth fees.  Netflix price to stream a movie has actually dropped from 5 PENNIES to 2.5.  The bulk of their costs - and the price you pay - is actually for content.  Spotify distributes like 70% of it's money in royalties based on play counts, and the other 30% is their revenue.  Theoretically, if people double how many songs they play on Spotify, Spotify will take a bit of a hit for bandwidth costs (but we are talking 1GB of music = @7 hours, which costs them like 3 pennies, or a 1% hit to margins).

For content providers, there are basically 3 models - advertising, subscription or a mix.  I don't see how NN could or should change that.

The concern about a layer of "middle man" fees where the ISP charges you to access certain cites is a non-starter, IMO.  These are national deals, and if Comcast tried to paywall HBO, for example, HBO probably says "screw you" and hurts Comcast massively because Comcast DOES have significant competition in many markets.

You are correct. I should have said they keep costs low by not having to pay additional fees.

But it's not just a national issue. Not all companies are as big as HBO and Comcast. I operate two sites. The revenue off them is nearly negligible, but it funnels interest and other revenue into other products. Sort of like social media, where I make no money, but use it to drive other products. If the model changes and there's significant cost increases, that pretty much knocks out the use of my sites.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2017, 03:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: Here is a counter point to net neutrality, what if the larger websites in turn denied access to their sites from certain ISPs? Could you imagine the mass exodus from Comcast if Netflix announced they would no longer allow Comcast customers to use netflix? Turnabout is fair play right? Companies like Netflix could turn this against ISPs and start favoring ISPs, driving more users to those ISPs that aren't being dicks about this.

See above. There are few if any alternatives for large swaths of the country. This would be great if the ISPs didn't essentially already have a monopoly.

[SunsetBengal]

(12-01-2017, 01:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Internet should be a public utility.

^This, right up there.  It should be like water or electricity.  Available to anyone, anywhere, and the cost should be associated with how much of it the customer uses.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2017, 06:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ^This, right up there.  It should be like water or electricity.  Available to anyone, anywhere, and the cost should be associated with how much of it the customer uses.

commie

[*bfine32*]

They covered this topic for about an hour on PNR today and they seemed to think that the biggest concern would be to small businesses that tried to advertise on the web. They too said it should be considered a public utility; as this is the only (firmest) grounds for regulation.

They said the consumer would suffer because Cable companies have zero reason to seem streaming services such as Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Hulu thrive.

The conservative in me asks: Why should government be allowed to regulate private companies simply for consumer's enjoyment? I'm a free-market guy and there was talk of how this may push satellite Communications in the future. That would be the route I would love to see.

It sort of reminds me of the current electric company situation and the hurdles behind alternative sources. if the electric companies were deregulated do you thing alternate sources would suddenly become a whole lot more interesting?

[SunsetBengal]

(12-01-2017, 06:11 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: commie

Yep, even a moderately educated, middle aged buffoon like myself can see that a tool like the internet has moved from being a "luxury" to the level of being essential to perform in modern American society.

However, I don't think that providers should be able to control content, or slow volume of service to ensure that consumers will purchase other services from the provider.  That would be giving Communications providers a complete monopoly.  Content selection is totally up to the user, and can be governed by cost of volume used, and or the free market in regard to premium sites and services.