Net Neutrality — Threat Or Menace?

Roblimo writes "I had a dream. In it, I was CEO of a large telecommunications company that was also a major broadband Internet provider and all five members of the FCC were stabbing me with pitchforks and yelling in my ear that my company would be treated as a common carrier, not as a special entity they couldn't regulate. That's when I woke up..."

Comments

Shitty Story

[sexconker]

Shitty or very Shitty?

Re:Shitty Story

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even a "story". It's just a half page rambling preaching to the choir, and Tim decided to throw some traffic at slashdot's oldie roblimo.

Re:Shitty Story

[PopeRatzo]

For once in the history of mankind. Can't we have something good that excessive greed WON'T be allowed to fuck up?

You sir, are un-American. It is a founding principle of our nation that excessive greed gets to fuck everything up. It's in the 1st Amendment (or at least, it's been in the 1st Amendment since the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United).

I'm still shocked to learn that the FCC still doesn't classify broadband internet as a telecommunications service. What else could it be?

Re:Shitty Story

[ottothecow]

He touches on something I mentioned in a story the other day.

Allowing wireless providers the ability to regulate the flow of information sort of makes sense right this moment. The technology is still week compared to expected usage as smartphones are exploding (see iphones in NYC...hell, even see the fact that I live near wrigley field and have to try several times to connect a call whenever there is a game). The use of mobile devices now is still limited and they are rushing to keep up with it. It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower. We may not agree with them on this, but it is a valid point of view.

Problem is that if you pass something that allows this now...what happens when technology matures to the point where everybody in the US has a smartphone that is more capable than todays computers and the provider-side technology exists to feed them all fast data simultaneously? You can bet that verizon isn't going to say "hey guys, we have really fat pipes now so we are done filtering/shaping". You can bet congress won't be in a hurry to repeal something they just recently passed.

Re:Shitty Story

[hedwards]

Wireless isn't a competitive market, they aren't competing with each other. It's more like an informal cartel. The prices are shockingly similar as are the services. Prices are strikingly similar carrier to carrier and there's a plethora of abusive practices which shockingly enough haven't gone away. What, pray tell, is the point of switching cell phone providers if they pretty much all engage in the same sort of bad behavior?

Re:Shitty Story

[jc42]

What we have is good? Try telling that to the old-timers like me who remember when USENET was a place where people enjoyed conversing, rather than a place of spam, hatred and hostility.

Well, that's what we get for inviting the marketers and politicos in on what we were building. If we'd kept up the pretense that it was an Ivory Tower thing only of interest to academic types (and our military funders ;-), we wouldn't have these problems.

Of course, we'd also probably not have connectivity to our homes or mobile phones. The only way to make the Internet available everywhere we want to go is to make it universally available. The universe includes those marketers and politicos, so it was inevitable that they'd stumble into our sandbox and behave the way they've always behaved.

Re:Shitty Story

[TheRaven64]

It might be fair for them to say "no, you can't torrent right now" since you torrenting could kill everybody else trying to share your tower.

Why? Why is a torrent less important traffic than an HTTP transfer? It makes sense for them to be able to charge more for reserved bandwidth with latency guarantees, such as for VoIP or video conferencing traffic, but it should be up to the customer what protocols they use. If someone is using so much bandwidth that it is affecting the rest of the cell, then either throttle them or charge them more, but don't just block or throttle specific protocols.

here we go again

[Sir_Lewk]

Que the standard partisan trolls screaming about how the government should "keep their hands off of the free market". Remember folks, before posting make sure to conveniently forget that the current state of affairs is anything but a free market, and that telephone companies have been common carriers for years without the foundations of freedom this country was supposedly built on crumbling. (well, at least not because of that...)

Re:here we go again

[TubeSteak]

and that telephone companies have been common carriers for years without the foundations of freedom this country was supposedly built on crumbling. (well, at least not because of that...)

Telephone companies were a free market, before they were a monopoly, before they were regulated into a free market.
Wireless providers are an oligopoly and they naturally don't want to end up regulated like their old fashioned copper wire predecessors.

What's good for them and what's good for us are two different things.
Unfortunately, they've got billions of dollars and we don't.

Re:here we go again

[grcumb]

What's good for them and what's good for us are two different things.
Unfortunately, they've got billions of dollars and we don't.

Where, pray tell, do you think the billions of dollars come from?

The level of cynicism in the US these days is appalling. Given the number of things that are wrong with the country, and the relatively sophisticated level of interaction that we see on slashdot[*], you'd think that action might occasionally result. But no, the very people whom you empower to make stupid decisions are treated as some kind of force of Nature, no more controllable than the weather.

Yes, the system is fucked from top to bottom. Yes, getting anything done is boring and tedious and draining and maddening and prone to delay. It's designed that way to keep things from changing. Yes, dream as one might about overnight revolution, the only major changes to happen in the US since the revolution have taken decades as often as not. Equality for all races is still not fully achieved, a century and a half after people first began fighting about it. The very concept of the government as having a role in preserving the welfare of the people remains contentious and under constant challenge, fully two generations after it was first introduced as policy.

What, did you think there was any other way? Did you think you could just throw a hissy fit and the nation would re-shape itself to fit your latest whim?

The media are corrupt and debased, so find better sources for reporting, analysis and commentary. They're there to be found. Yes, your politician is a small-minded dick (or dick-ette) who's happier to comment on some inane 'wedge issue' than take an actual stance on policy. That's because the tactic works. Challenge them, primary them, pick on them and don't let up. Pick your battles and goddam well fight them.

Yes, you're going to lose a lot of the time. Most successes will be compromises that will make you throw up a little in your own mouth. But you'll have moved the sticks another yard.

Even if you do none of the above, please, for Christ's sake, stop throwing up your hands in despair. Come on, you're clever people! Act like it for once.

You - more than the nut-bars on either fringe - are the people who most make me want to despair. You're smart enough to know better, and to achieve real change, but you've already given up. There will be nut-jobs in every generation; what's tragic about this one is that you've ceded the entire political process to them.

----------

[*] I said 'relatively'. Relative to the average forum, yes, this is sophisticated. Hell, you're even reading the footnotes, so QED. 8^)

Re:here we go again

[MBCook]

In wireless there is enough competition, the barriers of entry are much lower, anybody with some money can buy/rent a few pieces of land and install their own cell towers.

I was going to moderate in this discussion. Forget it.

How is there enough competition? Is that why text message prices have gone up, despite costs to send them going down? Is that why AT&T has been spending less on their (famously bad) network lately, despite traffic being up at least 40%? Does that sound like something you do when you're in tight competition?

And what's this low barriers to entry stuff? Putting up cell towers is expensive as hell, and it's hard to get the land to put towers up (which is one reason it's hard to cover cities). Then you have to have a spectrum license, phones that work with your chunk of spectrum, backhaul.... And no one is going to sign up with a carrier that only has 2 or 3 towers.

Or are you talking about being an MVNO? Because those, even those that were arms of the big guys, have done so well over the last few years. The only carrier that seems to have entered the market recently is Wal*Mart, who is an MVNO (they don't have their own towers), and they have hundreds of billions they can spend to do it.

So if a company builds network infrastructure by itself without any help from any government, shouldn't it be able to sell a service with a contract that explicitly discriminates against anything they wish?

It's a legal contract, the government should stay out of it. But that's not the situation. We have 2-4 big companies, who move in concert (text message price raises are an example) and use their resources to keep new players out of the market (contracts, spectrum license auctions are bid up, etc). They have an oligopoly which they actively try to keep in place to stifle competition.

The government should keep it's hands off the free market. But wireless and consumer internet access are no where near free markets for the vast majority of people, so it's the government's job to come in and protect citizens. Sometimes an industry or market needs a kick in the rear to get it moving. Sometimes that comes from inside (foreign cars during the oil crisis pushed the direction of Detroit), and sometimes it has to come from outside (the AT&T breakup).

Re:here we go again

[jpapon]

I can call California cheaper than the town next door because of it

If you're still paying based on where you're calling (inside the US) you need to stop wasting your time posting on /. and change your friggin phone service.

Also, I don't really see how regulation goes against the free market. That's like saying having cops and laws goes against a free society. It doesn't. It goes against an anarchist society. I wish people would stop claiming they want a "free" market, when really they're just asking for anarchy, where corporations can do whatever they please to extort money out of you. Can you imagine if we didn't have the SEC, the FDA, price gouging laws, consumer protection laws... etc...

In spite of what you may believe, the people out there looking to make money off of you aren't trying to be your friend. If there's no oversight, well, there's anarchy

Re:here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that the market will self regulate but it won't.

1) More smaller companies will not make regulation happen. We had dozens of wireless providers and they slowly consolidated again--that's the endgame of capitalism.

2) Cost of entry is too great for others to get in to the game and not because of regulation but because of hardware and wires, so we won't be seeing competition coming from the outside.

3) Some times a government granted monopoly is the way to go. What would happen if everyone had to pick their own garbage collection company to come to their house? Collection days would widely differ, so trash would constantly be on the curb on your street; trash would pile up if companies folded without notice; some people would crazy sums of money because they were out of area; and really since they are already going down the street, why not just get all the trash on the street at once.

Some times it's more efficient to be government regulated industry.

Re:here we go again

[TubeSteak]

Where, pray tell, do you think the billions of dollars come from?

The level of cynicism in the US these days is appalling.

1. If I had millions of dollars in disposable income to setup lobbying groups that would be pro-consumer, I would... but (see point #2)

2. More often than not, industry groups get invited to the negotiating table and consumer advocacy groups don't.

Yes, you're going to lose a lot of the time. Most successes will be compromises that will make you throw up a little in your own mouth. But you'll have moved the sticks another yard.

Even if you do none of the above, please, for Christ's sake, stop throwing up your hands in despair. Come on, you're clever people! Act like it for once.

It doesn't matter how "boring and tedious and draining and maddening and prone to delay" the system is if you and I never get a seat at the table when it counts.
Ultimately, by the time industries/politicians go public with their plan, our ability to negotiate a meaningful compromise is already irrevocably fucked.

It's very rare for a large policy issue to not get decided behind closed doors and then "opened" to public input.
You can assert that I'm being cynical and despairing, but I'm calling it like I see it.

Or to put it succinctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

Re:here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious or are you trolling?

FCC regulates stuff. For example, they regulate telephone networks so that telephone networks guarantee certain amount of traffic, *always*. What was the last time you picked up a receiver and didn't get a dial tone? That's FCC rules. FCC does not regulate your caller ID!

FCC job is to regulate ISPs such that they cannot to QoS on SIP vs. HTTP, or SIP from telco 1 vs. SIP from telco 2. They can regulate that ISPs can only do QoS based on end-point-IP of their customers only, and not on content provider's IP or what is type of connection.

Without FCC regulation, what is stopping ISPs from fucking over all SIP, IPX and any other voice connection because the ISP is also a phone company? What is stopping the ISP from demanding extra money to provide smooth HD traffic to youtube? Nothing. Monopolies can demand whatever they want.

PS. I pay $0.01/min (one cent per minute, or 60 cents an hour) to call any number in the US. Better quality than regular PSTN connection. All thanks to Internet and because my ISP *chose* not to fuck me over. But what guarantee do I have that the ISP will simply not start blocking SIP connections because their revenue for long distance from my number is non-existent?? And what choice do I have for another ISP? Absolutely ZERO.

My SIP provider, callwithus.com, even has a notice,

Some ISPs block VoIP traffic to push their own VoIP services to customers. We offer VPN (virtual private network) connection to our server to avoid provider's blocks. Stay connected! We have a high success rate.

yeah, it's already happening. ISP fuck customers over because they know they can't move to another provider anyway.

Re:here we go again

[shadowofwind]

Trouble is, as I see it, people complain when they're getting the short end of the stick, but almost always sell out when they get a chance to grab the long end. "The rest of us" can't beat the bastard elites, even though in theory we're stronger than them, because every time a few of us get a little leverage we switch sides.

Re:here we go again

[246o1]

Can you imagine if we didn't have the SEC, the FDA, price gouging laws, consumer protection laws... etc...

Yeah, maybe people would actually have to *gasp* think for themselves.

Regulation reflects people thinking about something and saying "I would rather have the world work in this orderly way, and use my brainpower on more important tasks than researching every company I buy food from, buy cars from, borrow money from, or engage with in any way. In order to have the freedom to spend my time some other way, I support the existence of public institutions working on my behalf for the public good."

Re:here we go again

[grcumb]

Trouble is, as I see it, people complain when they're getting the short end of the stick, but almost always sell out when they get a chance to grab the long end. "The rest of us" can't beat the bastard elites, even though in theory we're stronger than them, because every time a few of us get a little leverage we switch sides.

That's an exceptionally good point. You not only have to win the ground, you have to defend it as well. That's why politics is such a difficult game, one where gains and losses are generally measured in tiny increments.

And yes, as we saw with the 'flower power' generation (and every other besides), no sooner does a group achieve entitlement than they start blocking others from achieving it. The bastard elites will always exist, and there will always be a disenfranchised group fighting for a place at the table.

Again, that's what makes The System a pain in the ass to contend with: There's always some bastard elite trying to hold onto what they've got. Sometimes they're right to do so, sometimes not.

Also be worried about the rest of the world

[Meshach]

Judging from the restrictions being imposed the rest of the world that should be making more of us angry. Why there are not more people up in arms about the restrictions in the middle east is beyond me.

Re:Also be worried about the rest of the world

[webheaded]

Because people are naturally more inclined to be angry at things that affect them? Is that even a real question? And who is to say how angry anyone is or isn't at the rest of the world. I routinely talk about the UK to 1984 and exclaim that the book wasn't meant to be used as a handbook.

Furthermore, this is a US site, with people concerned primarily with US affairs and the people in those countries that have the most heinous blocks have a real hard time complaining about it behind the great firewall. And lastly, I wasn't aware you could only be angry with 1 thing at a time.

Re:Also be worried about the rest of the world

[dbcad7]

People live in different societies, with different morals and values.. It is not my job to change them to match my morals or values.. Change comes from within. No one is going to come to my rescue, or get up in arms if my government does something to suppress me, and I wouldn't expect them to., I would do what I could to change my own government.

Re:Also be worried about the rest of the world

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem is that there is no technical reason it has to be a "public place". People should be able to expect that their emails are private communications, just as their post letters are private.

It is practice, and more specifically government and large-corporate practice, that has mandated the "publicness" of the internet. It need not be so.

This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[GiveBenADollar]

This is what I see:

Side A: Net Neutrality means that I can do whatever I want with my net connection without paying different fees!

Side B: Net Neutrality causes the government to regulate what ISPs provide, and stifles free market!

Nobody is arguing true net neutrality, which is that my ISP is not allowed to regulate what content I receive through the means I have purchased. I don't care if they block ports on some plans, or limit my connectivity in other ways so long as they are not blocking sites or CHANGING the content before I receive it. If I use more bandwidth I deserve to pay more because it costs my ISP more to cater to me, but I don't want them to re-direct my web browsing (even my advertisements), I don't want them to throttle certain things that I am allowed to do, or otherwise hinder my connectivity unless it's actually because I have gone outside the bounds of my service plan (Too many GB downloaded/uploaded). Until we can stand together and support the free exchange of information without tying it together with freedom to do whatever the hell you want net neutrality will fail.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[jmorris42]

> If I use more bandwidth I deserve to pay more because it costs my ISP more to cater to me..

Exactly. Meter bandwidth and the whole argument changes to a much saner ground.

Blocking P2P becomes a non-issue with ISPs if they can charge the filehogs enough to make a profit from them. Especially since if they have to pay most filehogs aren't going to be downloading nearly as much and if seeding actually has a monetary cost it really gets cut back. The p2p problem mostly goes away.

Then there are the VOIP and Netflix (more generally the Video on Demand) problems. Those also cease to be massive threats to the ISPs business model. Since most ISPs are government monopolies also involved in the video and dialtone markets they do need some regulatory thwacking to make sure they don't compete unfairly. Better still would be splitting the monopoly parts from the dialtone, IP and TV delivery industries from the content/value add. See my earlier post here and many in the past flogging this horse.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is blocking ports not the practically the same as blocking sites? At least when they advertise "Internet", they should give you the Internet, and not a restricted version of it.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[Jane Q. Public]

The problem with that idea is that it hasn't worked elsewhere, and we have no reason to expect it would work any better here.

I know a statement like this could get me shot at for being a troll, but according to all relevant statistics, the reason the U.S. is currently a third-world country for broadband is because it has been left up to private companies, who continue to price-gouge their customers.

In the other countries that have better and cheaper broadband than the U.S. (which means most other industrialized nations), it is regulated and there is mandatory leasing of resources like backbone bandwidth so that there is, in fact, some actual competition, unlike what we see here.

As long as the industries remain unregulated we, the citizens of the U.S., are going to continue to get screwed. The Internet is not a commodity like potatoes that will find its natural price in the market. It is an oligopoly that will never let go of its grip until it is forced to.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[unix1]

The phrase "net neutrality" has a moderately good chance to become a political term, much like "global warming". Since FCC has been effectively shut out by the courts, at the end it may come down to 2 possible outcomes:

1. Congress passes a law that regulates ISPs to serve "legal" content in a reasonable way; "political" and "charitable" content may also get a special treatment; they'll probably also mandate some sort of snooping, logging, filtering (or banning), and reporting since RIAA and MPAA will probably "help" draft the bill.

2. ISPs are not regulated in any significant way - they have special deals with high-bandwidth high profile providers; this is likely to negatively affect competition since the upstart "small guy" with great ideas, in addition to his bandwidth and hosting, now has to pay ISPs nationwide (maybe worldwide) to deliver his content and fight against the established "big guys" who may, in turn, try to coerce those same ISPs to keep the little guys from competing.

Hmm... which one to support...

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[webheaded]

Except you forget the part where the peak amount of bandwidth usage is the only actual factor that matters. It doesn't matter one bit how much bandwidth I use per month...it only matters how many people are using it at a time. The whole $/gb model doesn't even make sense. It's based upon a bunch of greedy bullshit. The ISPs don't seem to have any issues upgrading their infrastructure with the 100's of millions of dollars they make not to mention they built that infrastructure with our tax dollars. I might be sympathetic if they weren't putting absurdly low limits on this kind of stuff. My friend in Canada has to limit the games he downloads and buys from Steam because of the bandwidth limits...that's kind of retarded. This seems to be a fairly regular activity these days along with streaming movies and watching Youtube. I don't really think that all those bandwidth hogs are really going to be seen as that for much longer.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[jd]

The ISP doesn't pay more, the ISP has a fixed pipe for a fixed cost from their ISP, and so on up the chain. At the top of the chain, the backbones have a peering agreement at either fixed cost or no cost.

The pyramid works because the cost of the pipe is 99.9% the cost of installation, with 99% of the installation that will ever need to be done already done (via the existing telephone networks, cable networks, used fiber and dark fiber). The only actual cost to the providers is that 0.1% for maintenance. The cost of heating the buildings that the staff are in and cooling the server rooms the ISP's equipment is in, vastly exceeds the cost of actually providing the service. And that cost is fixed, regardless of how many customers there are or how much bandwidth they want.

Secondly, you are using an inherently unreliable network, NOT a commercial-grade MPLS tunnel. Even there, the same rule applies. A fixed pipe for a fixed cost. The cost is higher than regular rates, but the format is identical. If they want to scrap the regular scheme and move to a guaranteed service system, then price accordingly. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But metering merely works to obscure the real costs and the real service. You paying for a packet you send to the ISP, when you have no guarantee they will ever forward that packet to their provider OR that it'll ever make it to the destination OR that the reply will make it back to you -- it's about the same as paying the full price for a return train ticket in the knowledge that you can be kicked off that train at any time to make way for someone else with no possibility of a refund, a change of heart or a new ticket. If you wouldn't accept that for the train, then why are you so willing to accept the same crappy treatment of anyone else?

It is because people accept crappy treatment that most services today - be it the Internet, the phone networks, television, or whatever - are all crap. Don't add to the crap that you'll take from others, for goodness sakes!

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[nurb432]

I don't care if they block ports on some plans, or limit my connectivity in other ways so long as they are not blocking sites or CHANGING the content before I receive it.

Right there folks is why we have lost our freedom. Its either all or nothing, and you cant have 'just beacuse it doesn't effect me ( today ) i don't care. You need to care from the start.

"Then there was no one to say no when it got to me"

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[jmorris42]

> The ISP doesn't pay more, the ISP has a fixed pipe for a fixed cost from their ISP, and so on up the chain.
> At the top of the chain, the backbones have a peering agreement at either fixed cost or no cost.

Despite your low UID it is clear you don't know shit about the Internet game. Lemme break it down for you.

Imagine you are a cable company in a small rural town of 10,000 and for some reason are just now adding Internet service. So you have installed a fiber backbone in town and some boxes on the poles to segment the town into a dozen segments. You just paid one Metric Shitload for a 1GB fiber from your plant to an upstream provider. Now you are ready for customers. 10Mb service for $50 sounds in the ballpark so you advertise it. The first batch of customners are raving filehogs. 10Mb per customer for 100 customers... your pipe is running at capacity.... or would be if you could actually deliver that to them with the segments you put in place. So after adding a lot more segments you have em all happy. And your outbound pipe is running at 100%. So when the next 100 customers show up you have some decisions to make.

1. Just oversubscribe em until everyone complains.

2. Buy a bigger pipe. But that is just losing money at a faster rate because the $50 monthly charge x 100 isn't even in the same ballpark as just the 1MS (Metric Shitload) you are paying for bandwidth and you have to maintain the rest of the plant, pay the bank note on the original hardware investment, pay tech support, etc.

3. Cap their asses.

The current 'unlimited' retail Internet only works if you can oversubscribe and that is only possible if the filehogs are a small minority of users. Netflix, YouTube and other bandwidth eating apps are quickly changing that assumption.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking about speed and parent is talking about bandwidth available.

maybe traffic shape and throttle.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[bky1701]

Yet somehow, the rest of the world is still better off, even though they have so many more regulations. I wonder - should we go right for the root cause and stop letting politicians be bought by the highest bidder? That might help a little.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[bky1701]

"All or nothing" means anarchy or totalitarianism. I'd say it's a false dichotomy. The problem isn't that people don't understand "it's all or nothing" (because it's not), but that people are apathetic to any problem that isn't theirs. In the US especially, we only care about our own problems and yet are very easily manipulated to intrude on other people's private lives. It is perfectly acceptable to cry about how your freedoms are being somehow harmed ("oh god they're removing my freedom of religion by separating church and state!") while mounting crusades against the freedoms of others ("gays don't deserve to be married, it'll harm us all!"). When it comes right down to it, the problem America has is ultimately a total lack of perspective on anything, even our own opinions.

Re:This all hinges on what "Net Neutrality" is.

[The Lesser Powered O]

People keep forgetting that networking is a layered service.

Access methods (DSL, Cable, Fiber, Wireless) shouldn't determine the ISP -- they should simply be means
to *get* to an ISP. That way, I can switch ISPs whenever one starts acting in a way I don't like. It used to
work well with dial-up -- you could have *several* ISPs from one phone line. There's no technical reason we
can't go back to such a situation.

Go down a layer. Let's have the regulations guarantee *packet* delivery. Whoever owns the fiber/copper/wireless
infrastructure can have a neutral packet delivery service. Pay them for a point to point conenction to any of a multitude
of ISPs.

That's a network neutrality plan I can live with...

Ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder why Americans treat regulation as something inherently bad. What is clear is that in the Western world, there are strong positive correlations between the amount of regulation of the economy and societal equality, and societal equality and general happiness. Assuming that the free market is good, and therefore regulation is bad, however, is a purely ideological stance.

While I understand that treating the government with suspicion is a healthy attitude that makes degeneration into tyranny less likely, but that is more an argument for government transparency, not for generally keeping the government out of things.

Re:Ideology

[Jane Q. Public]

One of the reasons it is "automatically" considered to be bad is that much of it is illegal. Like it or not, our government does not have Constitutional authority to carry out much of the regulation it already does, much less what it wants to do.

If people don't like that, they can always change the Constitution. But as long as the Constitution remains as it is, government regulation is bad, to the extent that it is extra-legal. Which means almost all of it, on the Federal level.

"Common carrier" status

[Animats]

We need a rule that if network connectivity is provided by a company which uses (or is affiliated with a company that uses) public rights-of-way for its cables, or public airwaves for its transmissions, it is a common carrier. All data shippers must receive equal treatment, and the carrier itself cannot compete in the content business.

We used to have that in the US, and it forced a separation between ISPs and telcos. That was lost somewhere in "telecom deregulation". We need it back.

Now we have the worst of both worlds - unregulated carriers with monopoly right of way rights.

Re:There are no stupid questions

[GiveBenADollar]

I decide to have a neutral pay scale group. Your in the group. Unfortunately everyone else in the group is unemployed. Now we will take your money and divide it up equally among everyone in the group. Fair right? Oh no, I'm not in your group. I make the rules so I'm in a different group which is also neutral.

Net neutrality in my eyes either means that we will have basic freedom of speech rules for Internet access precluding censorship by ISPs or on the other hand that we will have a everybody equal system of connecting where NOBODY will be able to get a better connection because all the bandwidth hogs will be set free. Neutral is in the eye of the beholder, and everyone pushing this issue has something to gain or lose.

Re:He doesn't want to be "forced" to host at YouTu

[Tetsujin]

"My personal take on Net Neutrality is that ISPs should treat all packets equally. I do not like the idea of being forced to host all my videos on YouTube or another huge site that can afford to make special deals with broadband providers such as Brighthouse, my local cable TV monopoly, instead of on my friend Joe's Globaltap hosting service."

Ugh. Nobody "forces" Mr. Miller to host anywhere. He's more than welcome to host his videos at his friend's Joe's Globaltap hosting service, but is he expecting his friend to do this for free or give him some flat rate $5/month service? Does Mr. Miller expect his friend Joe to eat the Internet transit costs of $3 to $10 per Mbps per month which might be thousands of dollars a month for popular content while he free loads off of his friend's hosting service?

The point being made in the article is that, without good rules in support of net neutrality, ISPs can place artificial limits on the effective throughput of a server per connection over their network. This is different from the server's normal performance limitations, as the ISPs can (and probably will) do this on a discriminatory basis in order to make their affiliated services look better. One could place their video on a server that's quite adequate for the job (and with a connection adequate for their level of traffic) but wind up facing intentional, discriminatory degradation of their content by individual ISPs when customers of those ISPs connect. This is what would "force" people to use a video hosting site like Youtube - in order to host video reliably they would need to either negotiate with all the different ISPs individually to ensure safe passage for their traffic, or else put the video on a site that has addressed this issue already.

I don't know if this would actually be a problem. I expect (of course I am not sure of this) that the ISPs will only direct this kind of discriminatory traffic filtering in cases where, one way or another, there is money to be made. They'll try to block piracy to encourage people to get videos, etc. via (their affiliated) legitimate channels, and they'll extort money from any high-traffic site with deep pockets (especially competitors). But I doubt they would bother with a small site that happens to have a video or two on it.

Real danger is people like him

[unity100]

morons who still cant decide whether we should have net neutrality.

fish-memory having morons of course. if they had any kind of memory and cognitive ability, they would realize that net neutrality was the de facto rule of internet up to this point, and major reason for its global adoption, public participation of masses, and its eventual success.

go please, start living in a cave. take your lack of cognition and misconceptions with you.