Slashdot Mirror
Tech Giants Rally Today in Support of Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
From a report: Technology giants like Amazon, Spotify, Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter and many others are rallying today in a so-called "day of action" in support of net neutrality, five days ahead of the first deadline for comments on the US Federal Communications Commission's planned rollback of the rules. In a move that's equal parts infuriating and exasperating, Ajit Pai, the FCC's new chairman appointed by President Trump, wants to scrap the open internet protections installed in 2015 under the Obama administration. Those consumer protections mean providers such as AT&T, Charter, Comcast, and Verizon are prevented from blocking or slowing down access to the web. Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality, according to advocacy group Battle for the Net. But most of the pop-ups The Verge has seen have been simple banners or static text with links offering more information.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Until vertical integration locks them out. Imagine TW Cable still existed and merged back with Time Warner the media company. Bang, now only some news sources load fast and Hulu works a lot better than Netflix.
20 years ago major ISPs were not directly competing with content providers, so there was no financial incentive to fuck with traffic.
It wasn't until data services started to compete with traditional telecom services that this became a problem. For example, VoIP, which used an internet connection instead of POTS lines, could make long distance calls for basically the same price as local calls (or even less if both parties had VoIP service). This became a direct competitor to the phone companies which, at the time, were also internet service providers. The result? VoIP traffic became snarled, making it less useful, less desirable, than traditional phone services.
Now, all the major ISPs are also content providers; they have their own streaming services, their own search engines, sometimes their own shopping networks. They have every incentive to leverage their control over the access to the internet to hinder their competition.
Network Neutrality is about ensuring fair access. It's about preventing service providers from abusing their position as gatekeeper to stifle competition, whether by traffic tampering or charging fees to make them less competitive.
=Smidge=
Im Modding so posting this anon.
In the first 20 years there were literally hundreds or thousands of providers. Changes to the FCC definition of a phone line removed them from the common carrier status as well as the requirements that the phone company provide the service to mom and pop ISP's. So back then if AT&T tried to block something everyone would simply change to another ISP.
I ran ISP's back in the 1990's and you would not believe how many times the conversation about "Common Carrier" came up. At the time all the ISP's I know of operated on the belief that it applied to them, especially when dealing with Usenet. Because it meant we would not be responsible for the content of usenet stored on our servers.
Or, maybe we could actually research who's lobying against NN: https://www.dailydot.com/layer...
Apologies, that site has tons of ads. Someone please search more and find a better link.
Bottom line, after the reading I've done, I've decided that there are a lot of big companies out there that consider their interests in this issue to line up with "the little guy". So, they're really working honestly to protect it, publicly, and with self-interest at heart.
We are repeatedly told , "net neutrality protects the little guy" â" a notion made rather suspect by the concern of the giants like Amazon.
I don't see a conflict here.
Amazon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon offers an on-demand video streaming service. Verizon ALSO controls access to these services for its customers. Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
So of course Amazon and others have a financial stake in this. The "little guy" does, too, since they're the ones who will end up paying more for inferior service at the end of the day.
The other side is new companies (aka the "little guys") that may be able to bring something innovative and new to the market, but would be hindered by anti-competitive practices by ISPs. Imagine, for example, if the major ISPs were all already offering video hosting and streaming services before YouTube was a thing... and decided that the fledgling YouTube would have to pay extra for the speed and bandwidth they needed to operate...
And if you want proof-in-the-pudding that Network Neutrality is a good thing, just look back to the bad old days before POTS providers were classified as common carrier. Once the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked in, competition increased and telephone service prices (especially long distance) dropped significantly, because the owners of the copper now had to treat all traffic - including the traffic of their competitors - equally.
=Smidge=
They can afford to pay AT&T whatever fees get extorted.
But they don't want to pay. Also AT&T can charge high extortion rates.
. If people can't access Google on AT&T they will switch to someone else. That can't be said for podunk rivals.
Switch to who? Most ISPs have monopolies in their markets.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Forced "neutrality" hurts them none. To cause them actual pain, promote competition. Government regulations help incumbents — be they cabbies under threat of Uber, hoteliers hurting from AirBnB, or the etablished ISPs facing off would-be competition.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And I don't mean this story.
Imagine if pornhub, xhamster, etc... decided to band together and block all access from Congress (or even all of Washington D.C) for 24 hours from accessing their sites. Bonus points if they add some sort of family-values message to their site ("We at [website] have taken the necessary steps to prevent our elected representatives from accessing the ungodly smut they claim is destroying this great nation. You're welcome").
Now that might actually trigger some change!
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
There is really no competition in the ISP space. Two providers is not competition. Two is essentially sanctioned price-fixing. The consumer hasn't liked the way TV is distributed for a while now which has resulted in Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and many others. But they still all need to use the infrastructure that's owned by the cable and phone companies. If they can't charge high-bandwidth users more, they're just not going to upgrade it and you can't force them to either.
Net Neutrality is a function of Last Mile Monopolies. Fix the last mile problem, and you won't need Net Neutrality rules foisted on us by Government and all the special interest groups paying to have their interests represented in DC, at the cost of the electorate's interests.
Seriously, do you think, even for a second, that the Politicos in DC care a shit about Net Neutrality, even when they claim they do? They care about lining their pockets with Special Interest Cash to next years campaign and vacations.
We keep thinking Top Down is the ONLY solution to our problems, and the result is more problems.
Here is my Last Mile Solution: Last mile is run by local municipalities. Every house has a run back to a COLO facility where SEVERAL ISP offer their products and services. Every Individual has the right to pick the services and products of their choice. Netflix can offer "NET n FLIX" package where they give you all the Netflix and internet you want. Comcast can offer their "Triple Play" Voice/TV/Internet Package, and Direct TV/ATT, Verizon/Yahoo, and all the rest can offer up whatever they want.
Net Neutrality becomes a non-issue at that point. Because if Comcast blocks/throttles Netflix, then people leave to go to "NET n FLIX" package from Netflix. Problem solved without Government Decree that has serious unintended consequences. And all the unintended consequences in my proposal get sorted out by market and consumer choice forces.
The bonus side effect is that there will be people offering Creative offerings that are impossible now (a la carte programming)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The write-up this. If you wish to dispute it, you need to offer citations. When did the regulations about to be abolished come into effect?
Er? Please read up on the history before you comment.
How is this wrong?
Okay let's start out that everyone pays for a connection. Netflix pays Level 3. You pay your ISP. You pay for a Netflix subscription. Your ISP should deliver Netflix if you want; however, your ISP wants to charge Netflix to send you data that you and Netflix already paid to send. Is that simple enough?
So? Why should it be the concern of the government and the citizenry, what these private companies do?
Why should it be concern of the government if private companies are wronging the citizenry? Is that the exact question you are asking?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Nothing other than my switching to XFinity or someone else available in my area, you mean?
The good old competition argument. That would be great if there was actually someone else available. Most areas only have 1 or 2 ISPs. Both ISPs are probably content providers too, so they will both be violating neutrality. We won't have real competition on ISPs so long as they are tied to telecoms, which are natural and regulatory monopolies.
Point is, they are not "little".
No, you've taken the statement out of context and twisting words. The term "little guy" means customer and startup web sites. Yes, neutrality protects "big guys" too, but that doesn't invalidate the point or make the statement wrong.
Are you saying, YouTube became a thing after 2015? Seriously?.. Really?..
No. Smidge204 did not say that. Seriously, really. He didn't.
Sites across the web will display alerts on their homepages showing "blocked," "upgrade," and "spinning wheel of death" pop-ups to demonstrate what the internet would look like without net neutrality.
Interesting, that's not what the web looked like for the first 20 years when there were no net neutrality rules...
For the first 10 years maybe. But in the past 10 years or so there most definitely HAS been some level of fuckery with various internet connections.
We've seen all manner of source based traffic prioritization.
We've seen connections intentionally slowed despite there being no load on the pipe.
We've seen practices that are more fitting for hollywood blockbuster involving some black cars, Italian accents and lines which all but stopped short of saying "That's a nice video you're streaming there. It's a shame it is now counting to an arbitrary limit that I just imposed on you. But hey I'm here to help. Either watch that video from my advert laden site or give me $15 extra and I'll make your worries temporarily go away.
If you think this hasn't been a problem then you haven't been paying attention.
Bullshit. There are plenty of examples of violations of net neutrality from before and during the period when the FCC rule went into effect (and that's a very tiny list... it doesn't include Comcast throttling Netflix until Netflix paid up, ISPs who block or throttle BitTorrent, all the "zero-rating" games being played by wireless providers and a plethora of other violations.
Take your astroturfing somewhere else.
Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
ISPs know they are in the business of providing Internet service. They know they can't really take hobble Internet streaming competitors without pissing off their customers.
The Netflix speed index for the US continues to increase, now above 3 Mbps for all major ISPs in the country which gives you a fine H.264 HD signal for on-demand content. No one can see 4K resolution without a 100" display, so no real need for that yet.
And many ISPs are incorporating Netflix Open Connect caches to improve Netflix service - is this going to be an "illegal prioritization" of Netflix traffic over those who don't have in-ISP caches?
My suggestion - no regulations for now. If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
Reports say otherwise. I am not sure why people all think they have one option in their areas and most people only have one option. True in the late 90's and early 2000's but ISP's do this crazy thing called expanding their markets to make more money and increase share prices.
At download speeds of 3 megabits per second (Mbps), which is the Federal Communications Commission’s current approximate standard for basic broadband service, 98 percent of the population had a choice of at least two mobile ISPs and 88 percent had two or more fixed ISPs available to them. . . At somewhat higher speeds, such as 10 Mbps, the typical person still is able to choose among two fixed ISPs . . .For example, only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices . . . Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more. Only 3 percent of the population had 1 Gbps or greater available; none had two or more ISPs at that speed.
The reports says there are multiple ISPs available for 3MB/s which the government considers broadband. If you are streaming Netflix, they recommend the minimum is 3MB/s for SD, 5MB/s for HD, and 25 MB/s for 4K. These are the minimums. If you live in a household with multiple users, good luck on streaming and using the internet at the same time. It also does not separate out between different types of ISPs like cable, DSL, satellite, or fiber. I considers them all as equal options even though they are not the same.
I am not sure why people all think they have one option in their areas and most people only have one option.
Because I've done the research in my area. I only have 1 cable ISP. I only have 1 DSL. I only have 2 satellite providers. I have 0 fiber. Satellite is out of the question based on speed. DSL provider has data caps and costs more money. So then there's cable. It's the only viable choice. Other than moving.
True in the late 90's and early 2000's but ISP's do this crazy thing called expanding their markets to make more money and increase share prices.
By expanding their markets you mean merging with or buying out rivals to form larger corporations and market share, right? That reduces competition not the other way around.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
Except when it does.
Not the first time either
Those are the things that caused Network Neutrality to become an issue. I'm sure there's more, more subtle examples that have been less widely publicized too.
Now imagine if there was explicitly no legal framework to prevent this. Imagine if it was not only expressly legal but accepted. There would be no competition for online services, no innovation, and higher prices for inferior service.
So when you say shit like this:
If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
You clearly have your head in the sand.
=Smidge=