Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Protests Move Online, Yet Big Tech Is Quiet (nytimes.com)
The New York Times: Protests to preserve net neutrality, or rules that ensure equal access to the internet, migrated online on Tuesday, with numerous online companies posting calls on their sites for action to stop a vote later this week. Reddit, Etsy and Kickstarter were among the sites warning that the proposal at the Federal Communications Commission to roll back so-called net neutrality rules would fundamentally change the way the internet is experienced. Kickstarter, the crowdfunding site, cleared its entire home screen for a sparse white screen reading "Defend Net Neutrality" in large letters. Reddit, the popular online message board, pushed in multiple ways on its site for keeping the rules, including a pop-up box on its home screen. But the online protests also highlighted how the biggest tech companies, such as Facebook and Google, have taken a back seat in the debate about protecting net neutrality (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; syndicated source), rules that prohibit internet service providers like AT&T and Comcast from blocking or slowing sites or for charging people or companies for faster speeds of particular sites. For the most part, the large tech companies did not engage in the protest on Tuesday. In the past, the companies have played a leading role in supporting the rules.
The megacorps won't be very negatively affected by a tiered Internet, they could even benefit. They'll get shaken down by ISPs, but in return they'll receive massive barriers to entry, protecting their empires from any scrappy new startups forever.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Perhaps they have been negotiating with the ISPs for great deals if they keep quiet? Or perhaps they are considering going into the ISP business themselves?
I don't think anyone here would be surprised to see Google or FB switch sides if they could earn more money by doing so.
"Do no evil" hasn't been on the charter for a long long time after all.
The large tech companies like FB have already made arrangements with Comcast and the other pipe-owners. They will happily pay a premium for their bandwidth, as it will make it harder for newer, less flush rivals to compete against them. What good is an Old Boys' Network if you can't use it to squash the young pups?
They can afford to bribe ISPs for preferential treatment, and shut smaller competitors out of the market.
Oh No
The big tech companies all voiced support for Net Neutrality because it was good PR or aligned with their interests. At this point, however, the cause is lost, and, frankly, they’re accepting that while it’s not an ideal situation, it will actually work out okay for them.
For instance, if ISPs decide to “tax” companies like Netflix, they’ll have to do so in a consistent manner lest they run into other regulatory issues, but those sorts of fees would basically establish a higher bar for entry that would prevent new competitors from entering the field against Netflix. Sure, Netflix will have to raise its prices, but so would anyone else who’s just trying to get started, so in the end it works out okay for them.
If there was something to be gained by voicing opposition to these changes, they’d be doing it, but there’s nothing to be done now and nothing to be gained for them by remaining in opposition, so they’ve tapped out.
The entrenched big tech corporations are now looking to eliminate potential competition. For example Netflix bundles their app on Comcast cable boxes. They want to make sure that their traffic is prioritized over their competitors. Of course, Google will want Youtube prioritized, etc.
Yes, they care, because they don't own the last mile.
Google wants Comcast users to watch YouTube. And they don't want Comcast to use their status as an ISP against them.
the big companies have the money for the fees and this means no upstarts can shut them down. Remember, at the end of the day Facebook is just a website with crummy adverts. All it takes for it to implode is for the teenagers to get bored and leave. Then nobody'll think they're cool anymore and the whole house of cards blows up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hmm... getting warm in here. I wonder if someone is trying to boil this here frog.
Sure, the first few months won't see much change. But the change (and restrictions) will slowly ramp up, as people get used to them. Then one day we'll wake up with a completely balkanized internet, and wonder how we got there.
The ISPs can't wait to start charging Big Tech for access to their networks. That is why Big Tech is quiet, they are afraid to rile the ISPs.
But that's the $64000 question: will congress step up to (re)enact net neutrality proper? Or sit on their laurels? As someone who typically votes republican, I have to admit it will probably be democrats who step up first, though I'd like to see a bipartisan bill.
I do however, except someone to step up in congress, because the sponsor of that bill has "hero" written all over him to the people. What congress critter would want to pass up that kind of fame and PR?
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The FCC aren't going to listen, you don't have any actual consumer-oriented governance or lawmakers.
You have a corrupt, pro-corporate setup. Foxes running the henhouse. All that. Pai has even been joking about it. Laughing at the peasants.
This is a done deal. Just another glorious benefit of the orange manchild making you 'great again'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Being kept on the fast lane in that last mile IS in their best interest. The very last thing they need is Comcast to create a competing service that offers a better experience because they can cripple the competition. How long do you think YouTube will remain relevant if loading one of their videos feels like using a 33.6kbit line while the new ComCastTube delivers them at full speed?
And how long until Vevo and other "we have all your favorite teeny idol" content providers move over to the provider-internal video services?
And then it's over for YouTube. While it sure is a lovely place for content creators of every kind, their maybe 10k views per video just don't hold a candle to the billions of views (and ad impressions) current chart hits bring in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "basic" QoS traffic shaping you refer to you be used by Verizon and Comcast to prioritize their own streaming services only, not streaming services in general.
I could be wrong but I believe VOIP traffic is already prioritized, if you're using an actual VOIP box supplied by your service provider. The likes of Skype and others probably aren't though.
IIRC the FTC is more of a reactionary body - one that only investigates complaints brought to it's attention from outside, not one that proactively establishes or enforces any rules. And under this administration? I wouldn't expect it to rule in favor of the consumer in any but the most blatantly obvious cases.
Congress should get off it's ass and establish some proper rules that apply directly to fairness on the internet - but, would you trust a bunch of 60 and 70 year olds to even remotely understand enough about the internet to write clear legislation regarding it? Especially the current set of them that think they should write all their legislation behind closed doors with a bunch of lobbyists and not hold a single public hearing with experts or public comment.
The Common Carrier designation is the best we're going to get to apply to ISPs for now. And there is zero reason to revoke that designation prior to new rules being put in place by congress.
The fact that the internet can get "slowed down" during a major event (like Xmas day) is the direct result of a complete separate problem compared to NN. The lack of available bandwidth is caused by the big ISPs having little to no incentive to build out their network infrastructure because of the monopolistic contracts they hold in most areas. They suck up endless profits while investing only the bare minimum back into their equipment.
The "basic" QoS traffic shaping you refer to you be used by Verizon and Comcast to prioritize their own streaming services only, not streaming services in general.
Then that's not basic QoS. That's why I said service and connection agnostic rules. VOIP gets priority over streaming video. Streaming video gets priority over web sites. Web sites get priority over downloads. That's all that should be allowed.
The fact that the internet can get "slowed down" during a major event (like Xmas day) is the direct result of a complete separate problem compared to NN. The lack of available bandwidth is caused by the big ISPs having little to no incentive to build out their network infrastructure because of the monopolistic contracts they hold in most areas. They suck up endless profits while investing only the bare minimum back into their equipment.
You don't build out your infrastructure assuming everyone is going to be using the maximum amount of what you are providing. The water system isn't designed for every household to take a shower, run their dishwasher and washing machine all at the same time. Roads aren't designed for everyone in town to be on them at the same time. The electrical grid isn't designed for everyone to draw the maximum amount of current their breaker box can handle at the same time.
THAT's why there are slowdowns every now and then. You don't design your broadband infrastructure assuming everyone is going to be downloading huge files all at the same time. If you did you'd be paying twice as much for broadband, because the network would be hugely overbuilt.
You build out your network to handle maximum throughput for 80% of the time. The other 20% QoS kicks in.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Youtube is already doing a fine job of driving content creators to other platforms. Most people don't even make money off of the stuff they publish since the collapse of ad revenue on YT, and in general online publishing. You don't seem to be up to date or understand exactly how rudderless YT is currently. Comcast on their own has shown that they really don't care about the quality of "last mile" unless it impacts large numbers of people.
Watch MundaneMatt's or Phil Defranco's stuff on it if you really want to get caught up quickly.
Om, nomnomnom...
Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times..... four times!
It's bitztream the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating, Slashdot editors-hating Slashdot troll!
Harold Feld, a senior vice president at Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group that supports net neutrality, said the biggest tech companies were less vocal because they were facing more regulatory battles than in past years. Social media sites have been criticized for allowing foreign actors to interfere in the presidential election of 2016. The biggest tech companies also face complaints from some lawmakers that they have become too large and powerful.
“First, the major tech companies are very aware that Washington has turned hostile,” Mr. Feld said. “In this environment, the big tech companies try to keep a low profile and play defense rather than take positions that draw attention.
“So with the dangers of standing up in D.C. greater, their existential concerns about net neutrality reduced because of their own massive size and a desire not to spook investors, it is unsurprising that Silicon Valley giants have melted into the background and have preferred to work through their trade associations,” he said.
Any congressman that knows being a hero to the small part of your constituency that even knows what NN isnt good if it pisses off the ones giving them money?
How's life in the hypocrite lane?