Ajit Pai Thanks Congress For Helping Him Kill Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com)

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai today thanked Congress for preventing the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules. "The Pai-led Federal Communications Commission repealed Obama-era net neutrality rules, but the repeal could have been reversed by Congress if it acted before the end of its session," reports Ars Technica. "Democrats won a vote to reverse the repeal in the Senate but weren't able to get enough votes in the House of Representatives before time ran out." From the report: "I'm pleased that a strong bipartisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives declined to reinstate heavy-handed Internet regulation," Pai said in a statement marking the deadline passage today. Pai claimed that broadband speed improvements and new fiber deployments in 2018 occurred because of his net neutrality repeal -- although speeds and fiber deployment also went in the right direction while net neutrality rules were in place. "Over the past year, the Internet has remained free and open," Pai said, adding that "the FCC's light-touch approach is working." Pai didn't mention a recent case in which CenturyLink temporarily blocked its customers' Internet access in order to show an ad or a recent research report accusing Sprint of throttling Skype (which Sprint denies).

Comments

Thanks

[110010001000]

A little extra in your pay packet this week!

free and open

[zlives]

fuck you pai, and the congress you rode in on

Re:free and open

[Anonymous Coward]

In DC, apparently.

Re:free and open

[John Guilt]

Not O.P.ing in this thread, it seems, for one....

Re:free and open

[PixetaledPikachu]

Does anyone know of a website like Slashdot but without all the whiny little bitches? Seriously, where are the people that enjoy life and actually thrive? People that are grateful for what they have and see each day as a gift. WHERE ARE THEY?

You're clicking an article about politics and net neutrality expecting those?

Re:free and open

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, fucking congress... Damn people just appeared out of thin air and took over, while everybody sat and watched, and cheered!

Re:free and open

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

You mean without millennials?

Re:free and open

[Anonymous Coward]

I only use the internet for speed tests though.

Re:free and open

[Highdude702]

My torrent speeds have increased too.. dont use public torrent sites and use full stream encryption. Or else dont complain that you can't break the law fast enough.

Is there some reason

[Kernel Kurtz]

they can't try again when the Democrats take over the house?

Re:Is there some reason

[DaHat]

And do what? Create a resolution which will die in the Senate? Hell, the last time the Senate voted on a related resolution they were opposed to NN: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...

Re:Is there some reason

[Kernel Kurtz]

The vote was 52-47 in the senate.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

Granted it would be easier in the house and harder in the senate next time around.

Re:Is there some reason

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It would have to be phrased slightly differently. Prior to now, Congress could pass an "LOL, No" bill in response to Pei's specific decision, just undoing it (the timelimit on an LOL, No bill just expired). This would have to be a longer bill, that fully explained what Pei the FCC had to do. It would probably also either be screwable with by Pei, or be so firm that the FCC couldn't adapt it in the future when the invariable loophole was found. Also, because it was a new rule, not an LOL, No bill, there's probably a gap in time before implementation, as opposed to the instant application of "LOL, No"

The legal name for the "LOL, No" bill is the "Congressional Review Act" if you want to learn more

Re:Is there some reason

[Hognoxious]

Pei's specific decision [...] explained what Pei the FCC had to do [...] screwable with by Pei

Living up to your user name there, Bubba.

Re:Is there some reason

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Reading and spelling are not the same skill. Thanks for point out my error.

Re:Is there some reason

[Kernel Kurtz]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

Only Tell Me When He Is In Jail!

[HannethCom]

The only thing I want to hear about that piece of crap is when he has been tossed in jail. I don't think it will happen, but Ajit Pai lied under oath in court and that is a criminal offense.

Re:Only Tell Me When He Is In Jail!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only a criminal offense for second-class citizens like you and me.

People like Pai are not held to such standards.

Don't hold your breath about him going to jail....I am being completely serious.

Re: Only Tell Me When He Is In Jail!

[houghi]

We luve in a world where people can lie and novody cares. They can even tell the truth and nobody cares.
He could say "I have taken bribes." Nothing woud happen.

Re: Only Tell Me When He Is In Jail!

[Hodr]

Well that's just not true. The IRS would ask for their cut.

GOP

[meglon]

Fucking over US citizens every chance they get.

Re:GOP

[Solandri]

Net neutrality is only "necessary" because of the cable monopolies. If the customers don't have a viable alternative ISP they can flee to, the cable monopoly can get away with anti-consumer moves like degrading Netflix until Netflix pays their extortion fee.

The reason we have cable monopolies is because local governments awarded monopoly service contracts. Usually they granted the monopoly in exchange for coverage guarantees - to insure that low-income areas weren't excluded from cable and Internet service. That's where the screwing over of U.S. citizens began. I can assure you it wasn't the GOP pushing for those coverage guarantees. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If you think we have cable monopolies because the cable companies are evil, you have cause and effect reversed. Cable companies became evil because government gave them monopolies. That kicked off the whole "power tends to corrupt; absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely" cycle, turning the cable companies evil. Rather than retain the evil companies and try to control their behavior through legislation which usually takes on the order of decades, we should just require competition to be reintroduced into the ISP markets. Once people have a viable choice of ISPs, they will choose the less evil one on their own, usually in a matter of months.

If there's competition, any ISP intentionally degrading Netflix to try to get Netflix to pay their extortion fee will just hemorrhage customers, who will switch to a different ISP who doesn't degrade Netflix. And the beauty is, competition doesn't just work to punish ISPs who violate net neutrality. It works against any anti-customer behavior by ISPs. The genesis of this entire problem is that a bunch of people in government decided they could do a better job choosing an ISP than The People.

Re:GOP

[JaredOfEuropa]

Not really. The real problem is that most ISPs are not satisfied anymore to just pipe the internet into our home like any plumber, they also want to get into the content game. And as soon as that happens, there’s an incentive to promote your own crap over similar content from other providers. And in any case there’s the temptation of letting someone pay you to give them preferred service, allowing you to collect from both consumers and hosts. We (still) have plenty of providers to choose from here, but they were getting ready to do all that, before our parliament voted in net neutrality. One of them tries and sees what they can get away with, then the rest of them follows suit. A race to the bottom.

Re:GOP

[Anonymous Coward]

Network service, just like electricity, water or gas distribution, has very high installation costs and marginal maintenance costs. This means that it tends to consolidate into natural monopolies, where the winner takes all even in absence of the regulation that you decry.

If you want a competitive market, you need to have regulation. This works quite well in Europe, where cities do not have any competence in market regulation. It it done at the highest level, on a "federal" scale, which is harder to corrupt than the local scale.

Re:GOP

[dgatwood]

The reason we have cable monopolies is because local governments awarded monopoly service contracts. Usually they granted the monopoly in exchange for coverage guarantees - to insure that low-income areas weren't excluded from cable and Internet service.

They did the same thing for telephone. But you're badly mistaken if you believe that removing monopolies will result in competition. Countless towns have tried that over the years, and essentially 100% of the time, they were back to a monopoly within about five years.

Why is this the case? Because wire infrastructure is something economists call a natural monopoly — a product or service in which the startup costs are so high and the payoff over such a long period of time that competition is infeasible.

When a new company comes into a territory with an existing cable company, the new company has to have some way of inducing people to switch — either by lowering their cost or by providing better service. Either way, it is very easy for the existing company to match their offer, because they have paid for their infrastructure, and almost all of their income is profit. So the existing company invariably either matches or undercuts the newcomer and provides enough improvements to their service so that the newcomer cannot steal enough subscribers to cover the payments on their construction costs plus operating expenses.

What happens then? Unless the local government decides to bail out the newcomer to keep competition going, the newcomer typically sells the infrastructure to the older cable company for little more than what they still owe on it, thus giving the incumbent a set of new replacement lines at significantly below cost. And you're back to a monopoly.

That's why, with the possible exception of extremely high-density areas where a new company can get by on a tiny percentage of residents/businesses, the only places where competition has ever really succeeded have been places that have had two or more competing companies since the dawn of cable TV, and even those usually break down to a monopoly eventually.

This is a problem that cannot be solved no matter what you do. Wire infrastructure is simply too expensive to allow for competition in practice. Heck, wireless infrastructure is almost too expensive in most places, forget wired.

The only way to get real competition in Internet service is to separate the wire provider from the actual Internet service provider. In practice, this can happen in one of two ways, both of which involve the government:

• Governments can create regulations that require incumbent cable or fiber providers to lease access to their competitors at a reasonable rate.
• Governments can build out a fiber infrastructure and then lease access to any ISP that wants to provide service over those fibers. Governments can optionally spin off the resulting fiber provider as a nonprofit corporation with a mandate to lease access to any ISP at a reasonable rate.

Either way, the result is the same: You have one company or organization providing wire service for multiple ISPs. When you do this, competition is possible at the ISP level. In practice, though, the second approach (government-built infrastructure) tends to work better in the long run, for two reasons:

• Incumbent providers who own the lines tend to do only minimum maintenance on lines that are in use by other companies, resulting in two companies blaming each other for poor service, and the customer having no real recourse.
• Those sorts of laws typically apply only to a given technology, and have to be constantly updated as the technology changes, or else they become useless. After all, we had such a law for ADSL, but the phone companies then ran fiber out to remote terminals to provide ADSL2 service, and wouldn't lease those fibers, so only the phone company could provide the faster ADSL2 service. And once you switched over, they would cut the existi

can't see the article through the ad

[Anonymous Coward]

Its really hard to read the top article due to the ad that takes 30% of the screen and blocks the ad.

Scroll you say... well the article scrolls under the ad

Congress should make net neutrality law

[melted]

Congress should make net neutrality law of the land. It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual result was 35.8%. The previous year it was 22%. The interesting aspect of that is it's based upon speed results by a company that measures speed tests. That alone makes it biased since people who upgrade their connection are more likely to run a speedtest vs those who don't upgrade to not running said test. Of course people who are new to broadband will also be more likely to run a speedtest, but the number of people new to broadband may not be increasing rapidly. Finally, speedtests are precisely the sort of thing that net neutrality rules would be designed to prevent being gamed by granting them higher priority to create the appearance of improved performance vs actual average performance.

In short, I'd like to see a more systematic measure of speed from a variety of metrics that in aggregate could be used to measure actual broadband penetration, speed, etc. It's not enough to read a news article linking to one website's numbers and accept it as fact any more than I'd trust Steam statistics as fact.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[dgatwood]

So - Internet speeds are increasing after NN is overturned. How is this bad for the consumer, again?

Speeds to speed test servers are increasing faster after NN is overturned, but those have little relation to actual Internet speeds. They represent best-case speed, rather than typical speed, because no ISP would be stupid enough to throttle connections to a speed test server. But actual average speeds may or may not be increasing any faster than they were before.

Also, by focusing on average speed, you're missing the whole point of net neutrality. It isn't about the average. It's about the worst case. It's about ensuring that ISPs aren't extorting companies who aren't their customers, about ensuring that ISPs don't artificially degrade performance on specific services like video-on-demand or VoIP to drive customers to their own competing services, and so on. That can't be measured using average bandwidth. At all.

To use a car analogy, saying that average Internet speeds increased after the repeal of NN is roughly like saying speed limits increased after overturning a law that prevents illegal speed traps.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[SirAstral]

" If you can bend the rules to insure a more moral outcome"

This is what is called using fuzzy logic to justify whatever outcome you choose. Your morals do not match other peoples morals. If you swear to follow the Constitution and then spend time bending it, then you are obviously intentionally breaching your oath and intentionally betraying The People. The moment you start down this path you are corrupt.

The proper process is to uphold that constitution and seek to legally amend the document to match your morals and go through the proper process to see if enough folks agree with your morals. Otherwise you only justify the concept of wiping your ass with it just like those blatantly disregarding it. You know just exactly what you were doing when you starting trying to BEND it in the first place. Acting otherwise clearly indicates that you are more than willing to become a hypocrite about the issue.

There are lots of things everyone disagrees on in the Constitution, but under no circumstances can it be allowed to be trampled for political or moral expediency with rending it completely useless as it has been rendered now. The list of usurpations and abuses of power are more than long and varied enough to make it clear we are potentially or uncomfortably close to just one flash point away from a catastrophic breakdown of our entire society. There are innocent & decent people rotting in the system and no one much cares. Many people are going to vote in a corrupt person regardless of party because now its all about the tribe and making sure your tribe wins at the expense of your fellow citizens.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[SirAstral]

It is hard to discuss things like this with folks like you because you are so full of fallacies and ignorance it hurts. The time it takes to point them all out are more than I care to tackle so I will only go after the most glaring. To be honest you practically need an entire day of introduction to basic logic and how to avoid holding contrary values.

"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."

This is a strawman fallacy. "The Law" and the "Consitution" are very different things, but apparently you are not capable of understanding that. The Law is just a bunch of rules enforced on people. The constitution is a founding document that gives those "rule writers and enforcers" their authority. Without it, they have no "agreed upon" authority. "We The People" are America... NOT THE GOVERNMENT but you don't seem to understand that. And if you are okay with using your strawman fallacy to deconstruct my point then you are also making the claim that your version of morals are superior to the constitution and that you should be allowed to judge who is a slave or human or having any rights.

"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."

That is the real hyperbole here. Just because YOU don't like a law they pass does not mean they betrayed anyone. If they pass a law you don't like your job is to get the law changed, NOT IGNORE IT, otherwise you are clearly promoting anarchy the opposite of being civil! If you are going to run around justifying that it is okay to break the law because you disagree with it then so can everyone else for their own petty reasons as well. After all.. why is YOUR understanding of morals so-called superior to a common thugs understanding of it or the law for that matter? Where is your authority for this judgement?

"You seem to claim there is something wrong with innocent and decent people rotting in the system... yet the constitution allows much of it."

That document does NOT allow for it. It is the constant breach of it that is allowing it, get your facts straight.

"In many cases the laws putting them there have been duly passed, and are enforced as written."

This is the REAL show of your ignorance and how contradictory and ignorant you are. Which is is? Where they duly passed or are they betraying you? If as you said "massively corrupt" then it is not possible for them to also be "in many cases...duly passed' So you either do not know what duly means or you are clearly not capable of keeping your own view points of of conflict with each other!

"The constitution does not provide a solution to the current systemic malignancy,"

that's what voting is for... if you and the rest of your fellow voters are as ignorant as you, then THAT is why you think there is no solution.

"if anything, one could argue that it was flawed at its inception that it allowed us to get here."

I suppose you are the only one among us without flaws... This reeks of a nasty God complex. The Constitution "with all of its flaws" is likely better than anything you could put together in a lifetime. You can't even survive one post without a bunch of conflicting view points.

"Partisan / Tribalism should never have been allowed to infiltrate the process for approving judges, or justice department officials."

EVERYTHING IS TRIBAL!! It is human nature, just being pro follow the law vs becoming anarchist in moral outrage is also tribal. You are espousing a tribal view in your bitching and moaning against them!

I espouse "follow the law" not because of tribalism but because if you say ignore it then you cannot justify punishing those that break it for their morals either. That is a hypocrisy and hypocrisy like that not far away from murder, because many time such hypocrisy has been used to justify "dehumaniz

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[drinkypoo]

They represent best-case speed, rather than typical speed, because no ISP would be stupid enough to throttle connections to a speed test server.

Unless it's fast.com, because it hits the same servers as netflix video. That at least tells you if they're throttling netflix (mine does.)

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[Can'tNot]

Yes, congress should make a law. And then to enforce the law they'll need to appoint some people with oversight powers. And then to keep the law up-to-date with current technology they'll need to set some guidelines, and then choose some people who will apply those guidelines as congress intends for them to be applied.

To ensure that these appointed people aren't rogues who will go off-script, there will need to be some sort of nomination and confirmation process... Where Ajit Pai will tell congress that he intends to kill net neutrality, and congress will say, "Yep, this is the guy that we want."

Stop blaming the FCC for this. Pai is a thug, just doing what he was appointed to do.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[JoePete]

It's insane that the FCC (an unelected body) had the authority for something like that to begin with.

You're making Pai's point. Congress should be the one who determines the extent to which ISPs should be regulated - not the FCC. Arguably, Congress already weighed in on this with the 1996 Telecommunications Act when it left broadband ISPs out of the category of "common carrier" (i.e. Title II) and subject to neutrality regulation. It was only in 2008 that the FCC, acting on its own, muscled in and told Comcast to stop throttling traffic. Comcast sued the FCC and won under the premise that the FCC did not have the authority to regulate broadband ISPs. So after being taken to task by an appeals court, the FCC responds in 2010 by adopting formal rules for regulating ISPs. This time Verizon sues them on the same basis - the FCC does not have the authority to adopt such rules. An appeals court again rules that the FCC is in the wrong because it is treating broadband ISPs as common carriers when in fact they have never been categorized as such. So in 2015, the FCC figures it out; it will just unilaterally categorize all ISPs as common carriers and thus subject to neutrality principles. This wasn't a Congressional Act. This was three (out of five) unelected commissioners that most Americans had never heard of voting to give themselves pretty significant regulatory power. In 2017, now with Pai as chair, they vote 3 to 2 repeal the rules.

All that the net neutrality debate has proven is that most Americans know little about Internet traffic and even less about their own government. Listen, if you love the Democrat-Republican blood bath that we are treated to hourly, by all means, continue to shout and stomp and advocate for more political fighting. If you believe in solving problems, I suggest picking up a copy of Magruder's American Government and walking into your city or town hall on occasion. You do realize, for example, that all that coax and fiber strung on the poles in your city or town is only there through a municipal contract with these service providers. And just like there are alternatives to Democrats and Republicans, there are alternatives to Comcast and Verizon. Sure, satellite, WiMax and other options may be expensive, but that is economics; sometimes you have to pay for quality. But the last thing any rational American should want is giving more power to a federal government that functions with all the maturity of two spoiled, out-of-touch brats constantly having a slap fight.

Re:Congress should make net neutrality law

[vux984]

"If congress betrays the people and passes an immoral and unjust law the people don't want, it is not a betrayal of the people nor is it corrupt to ignore it."

This is a strawman fallacy. "The Law" and the "Consitution" are very different things

The constitution is what gave congress authority to create the law. They are following the constitution as written. There is no strawman.

Just because YOU don't like a law they pass does not mean they betrayed anyone

To clarify: I'm talking laws that the majority don't support. This isn't about ME. That's an incorrect assumption you are making.

This is the REAL show of your ignorance and how contradictory and ignorant you are. Which is is? Where they duly passed or are they betraying you? If as you said "massively corrupt" then it is not possible for them to also be "in many cases...duly passed' So you either do not know what duly means or you are clearly not capable of keeping your own view points of of conflict with each other!

There is no contradiction. They were passed according to the rules. But the people didn't actually want them.

that's what voting is for... if you and the rest of your fellow voters are as ignorant as you, then THAT is why you think there is no solution.

Voting isn't a solution. Because there are only two major parties and in your own words...

EVERYTHING IS TRIBAL!! It is human nature,

So how does simply 'voting' get us to a solution?

Well that's dead wrong and another contradictory view point. How can people be basically good on both sides that have such hate for the other side?

Because most of us aren't extremists, and most of us get along just fine. I don't hate the 'other side'. I don't even hate the other sides politicians in the vast majority of instances.

I espouse "follow the law" not because of tribalism but because if you say ignore it then you cannot justify punishing those that break it for their morals either. That is a hypocrisy and hypocrisy like that not far away from murder, because many time such hypocrisy has been used to justify "dehumanizing" others so that their lives become less valuable. You have heard the terms before right? Calling people "inhuman" or saying they are not human?

You're argument is that the law is somehow already just, and that if we break the law we start classifying people as inhuman or devaluing their lives. I'm saying we already are doing that, so its a violation of the law to treat them as human beings.

Is sheltering an illegal migrant who would be killed if they were deported an evil act that reduces their humanity and devalues their life?

Was participating in the underground railroad, clearly in violation of the law of the day, a way to devalue human life?

You are making absolutist arguments that simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

Government tyranny has killed more than all war, pestilence, famine, or disaster.

I'm curious where you draw the lines. War is arguably part of government action, and famine and pestilence often follow in the wake of war.

Don't thank Congress

[rsilvergun]

thank the GOP. There have been a few votes to save Net Neutrality and they were lost along party lines (a few GOPers did break ranks but it wasn't enough).

I know folks don't like partisanship, but there are partisan issues and NN is one of them. Had Trump lost the election we wouldn't be reading this story today. Had the Democrats taken the Senate & House by a wide enough majority to override vetos we would be reading about the upcoming vote to restore NN. These aren't debatable points, they're just facts. Cold, hard facts.

We've got another election in about 2 years. Show up at your primary. The Dems have a wing that refuses corporate PAC money. If Net Neutrality matters to you then you know what to do.

Re:Don't thank Congress

[LynnwoodRooster]

What's the downside of no Net Neutrality? Was the Internet a wasteland prior to 2015? Is the fact that Internet speeds are up 40% over the last year a bad thing? What did the brief, regulation-by-executive-directive Net Neutrality time bring?

Re:Don't thank Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

Most gas stations probably aren't going to short you at the pump, but isn't it nice knowing that there are rules in place to prevent them from doing so/punish them if they do?

Re:Don't thank Congress

[LynnwoodRooster]

Yep! And with Internet speeds increasing by 40% per year, what's the downside? I get more than I pay for, but then - I don't use the crap my ISP provided as a router and WIFI modem. I used to get 25-40 Mbps down with the original Spectrum stuff, but when I quickly replaced it with a Netgear router and Orbi WIFI system, I'm getting solid 110-120 Mbps down - from the 100 Mbps connectivity I pay for. So if someone has an issue, is it the crap router they got "for free", or the service itself?

Re: Don't thank Congress

[Monster_user]

I get 5mbps, and no ISP actually services my area since at least 2016, so 5mbps is grandfathered legacy DSL.

As a result, you could say I've actually seen a decrease in internet speeds, not an increase. 5mbps to 0.

I don't get celullar service worth squat to use a hotspot. Cable, DSL, and Fiber are not available in my area, and satellite has ridiculous caps on data, such as 10GB per month.

Guess I'm on the wrong side of the cow pasture... "Big City" is just down the road on the other side of that cow pasture. Maybe five miles?

Re:Don't thank Congress

[cascadingstylesheet]

I know folks don't like partisanship,

{checks site logo to make sure I'm on /., spews coffee}

Re:Don't thank Congress

[JoePete]

Ultimately Congress has abdicated it's law making role because, heaven forbid, a lawmaker take a position and risk losing his or her seat. As such, increasingly we have seen legislation by executive action whether directly or indirectly through agencies like the FCC. Net Neutrality was a series of rules facilitated by a 3-2 vote of FCC in 2015. It was basically three people changing two decades of policy that had been in existence under both Democrat and Republican administrations and Congresses. Big whoop, in 2017, we have a 3-2 vote to repeal. This is Congressional politics descending to federal agencies. Flipping and flopping with whoever is in control. Never getting anything done. We don't have a democracy in the U.S. it's an idiocracy. This is like going to a baseball game, a fight breaks out between the two teams, a player whips a baseball at an opposing player, who ducks, and somehow the two teams are able to convince the umpire and fans to debate whether it should be called a ball or strike - like somehow how their chaos, immaturity, and fighting are legitimate. If you really want change, stop voting for the major parties.

Re: Don't thank Congress

[LynnwoodRooster]

I stopped linking because I posted the link a few times. What data do you have that shows otherwise?

job security

[renegade600]

he was really thanking congress for helping him secure an extremely high paying job for when he leaves government service.

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[OYAHHH]

Is that the best you got AC? Because the truth is Internet speeds are up and something called competition is greatly responsible for that!

Hero thanks world for helping him kill Ajit Pai

[Anonymous Coward]

Future headline I'd love to see!

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[Zontar The Mindless]

RTFS. A couple of them are listed there.

Net Nuetrality hasn't been replealed yet

[rsilvergun]

there's still numerous lawsuits going on. I can't believe I have to even say this on /., but the downsides are:

a. Price increases. ISP will leverage their control of the pipes to charge us more for services like on demand video.

b. Censorship. Again, ISP no longer have to treat all packets equally. That means if they don't like the Alt-Right (or the left) they can ban them.

c. No innovation. Small players won't even be able to get started because they won't be able to afford the bandwidth fees.

d. No more ala cart streaming services. No More cord cutting. It's only NN that made these possible. Say goodbye to Netflix, Crunchyroll and Youtube. Even the big guys won't be able to compete when the ISPs can charge them but not you. Same thing happened with Microsoft. Nobody could compete with them because they could leverage their defacto monopoly.

If I may digress for a moment longer: This is a constant thing I hear on the right and I'm fucking sick of it. To wit:

"We don't need this regulation to stop a bad thing because the bad thing is not happening".

It's like saying Murder can be legal because nobody I know got murdered this week. It's nonsensical and in any other aspect of life folks would call it out as bullshit. But there's a multi million dollar propaganda machine trying to get folks to distrust and hate regulation in general so the rich and powerful can splay us open and gut us like fish. And we're bloody god damned letting it happen.

Re:Net Nuetrality hasn't been replealed yet

[cascadingstylesheet]

b. Censorship. Again, ISP no longer have to treat all packets equally. That means if they don't like the Alt-Right (or the left) they can ban them.

So in other words, what's already happening (in only one political direction though) but at the packet layer.

Should save you guys some work; now you won't have to do it at the domain registrar, payment processors, etc.

Re:Net Nuetrality hasn't been replealed yet

[penandpaper]

Why is competition not the answer and how will NN promote competition?

Do you have any evidence that A, B, C, D and will happen when before these rules came to be none of those things were true?

The murder is thing is ridiculous and you know it. Even if the worst examples that advocates of NN claim come true, it would still not be in the same realm of murder. I can't take you or the issue seriously if you cannot act like an adult. Screeching about murder in the same discussion makes it seem like you are a child brainwashed by hippy parents. Stop it.

Re:Net Nuetrality hasn't been replealed yet

[JoePete]

What net neutrality essentially permitted was the FCC to regulate broadband ISPs by moving them from information services (largely unregulated) to common carriers (regulated). What would prevent the FCC from facilitating any of the A-D concerns you raise? An easy one to pick on is B - censorship. Consider that in 2004, CBS was fined $550,000 for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe" malfunction. Can you imagine where this could go with ISPs? You raise a good point about cord-cutting but you might not realize that it inadvertently is an argument against net neutrality. Netflix and other streaming services are categorized as Title I services by the FCC. They are information services (i.e. not regulated). Were they instead treated like broadcast networks (i.e. Title II), I think you are right, they wouldn't exist.

Millennials will change things

[rsilvergun]

not because they're somehow special, but because they've been given almost nothing. Between student loan debt and the 20% lower pay than boomers they own nothing to speak of.

The right wing stay in power by exploiting people's natural conservative natures (e.g. the genuine fear of change). This works because people have something to lose and that lack a sense of entitlement. The Millennials have nothing to lose and they're at least a bit entitled (the media likes to portray them as entitled brats, this is more right wing propaganda, since it's sense of entitlement that makes people demand a better life, which the rich don't want to pay for).

There's other factors. Evangelical Religion is melting away, with 24% of Americans declaring "none" as their religion. Religion's another easy to exploit system for the right wing to use. Racism is yet another and is fading away, with people in the South openly challenging the phony civil war monuments (phony because they were erected to remind blacks to stay in their place, not to honor the fallen).

If there's anything that worries me it's the right wing Wallstreet Democrats. These folks were created by Bill Clinton and are basically economic right wingers who regularly sell out the working class. They're planing on using the GOP's reliance on rural racists against them as demographics change and the number of Hispanics increase. I don't think it's a good strategy, those Hispanics are likely to be right wing as anything, but since the Wallstreet Dems can't do real policy to solve real problems they're grasping at straws.

either way.. tool

[AndrewFlagg]

either way, most hi-tech CEO's have padded their business odds with or without the game Ajit is playing. i still believe he is a tool. they will all make money coming or going, that is the game plan. technology fee here for this going that way, and then more technology fees for going back the other way... its a government compliance game led by bureaucrats through and through, and we all know it, look at every city, county, state systems - forced legal compliance (ergo. look at all modes of insurance companies for goodness sake... insurance companies have so much power and so much money, probably more than banks do...) amen. i rest my case.

With less NN rules

[AHuxley]

The rule of community broadband can spread.
No longer will monopoly telcos get to use federal NN rules to keep out new innovative internet services.

From Anecdotes to Imaginations

[Anonymous Coward]

When a government transitions the selection of valid measurements of the effectiveness of its policies from statistical to anecdotes over to imagined feel-good stories, it becomes a feel-good government for the people to feel good about themselves, but ceases being a government that is capable of acting on the benefit of the people.

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[DarkMagician07]

What competition?

I can't use my cell phone for all the computers in my home to get online, so that's not competition. I have 2 choices where I live, slow DSL from the phone company or fast cable connectivity with a cap based on some arbitrary number. Neither is the best option, and fiber will likely never be available where I'm at due to it being a rural area without thousands of people to sign up to it.

Until ALL lines are available to ALL providers without lease requirements from the incumbents who can drop lessees, there is no real competition. If the cable company came out tomorrow and said all users in my zip code now have to pay 1000% more for internet, we'd have to just suck it up and pay.

Re:Other issues besides NN

[DarkMagician07]

Muni broadband fails in most areas because states have granted monopolies to the telco's and cable companies. The only reason the fiber behind my house isn't lit is because the telco for the area said they'd sue if it was. It doesn't matter that the Public Utilities District owns the lines, it's because it would provide the service that the state granted to the telco/cable company. There was a big deal when cable started allowing two-way communications over it's network in the late 90's because the telcos believed they were the only ones allowed to provide bi-directional services such as the internet.

Until the monopolies on telecommunications via any device are broken up, that's the story for anyone who doesn't live in a densely populated enough region. It's also why I seem to have higher taxes and service fees for the same internet my friends and family get, just because I live in a rural area and they live in a city.

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[Xenx]

The reality is that things are moving forward now, as they were during NN, and as they were before NN. You want concrete evidence that there is a downside to the repeal of NN, but you provide no concrete evidence of there being a downside to maintaining NN. We already have factual evidence of some of the activities that were starting to happen before NN went into place. While it's speculative that those activities will continue after it's been repealed, it is fair to assume it's likely to happen. As to your claim that things are improving now as they were before NN kicked in, you're probably right. However, that overlooks the fact that those improvements were most likely planned before the repeal. NN, in either direction, likely has little to do with improvements. The only "evidence" I can provide is in relation to the rural ISP I work for. There are three major causes for speed improvements for our customers.

First, streaming use is picking up across the board. It even seems to be growing among the elderly. Customer's need/want service capable of supporting it.

Second, there is a minimum speed requirement to take part in the Connect America Fund. While we already had our minimum speed package meeting the requirements, we had plenty of grandfathered users on old packages we had to push to upgrade.

Third, we're a telephone comapany. There is only so much we can do with DSL. Infrastructure isn't cheap to upgrade, and can't be done over night. We've been building fiber out, for well over a year, to anywhere it's remotely feasible.

Finally, for what it's worth I live outside our service area. I'm stuck with Comcast. I'm not complaining about the speeds, as they offer packages up to 2Gbps in my area. I personally have no issues, but I have three co-workers that live nearby as well. They all complain about the throttling from Comcast, which I'm aware is due to network usage in their neighborhoods and not Comcast throttling arbitrarily. But, because of how their boost works, that throttling only affects real world internet performance and not speed tests. This means speedtest results are going to be misleading compared to average bandwidth for any time/area where Comcast sees high usage.

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[fustakrakich]

Competition? Please. If there were competition, the CenturyLink screw up would have been limited to the LAN in their office.

Re:Other issues besides NN

[fustakrakich]

why hasn't municipal owned fiber optic networks seen more success?

One word: Litigation

Re:let's not forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets also not forget the entire story. Obama was required to nominate someone the republicans would accept due to the FCC commissioners having to have a 3:2 split.

Ha!

[hvidstue]

In northern Europe we enjoy both net neutrality and very high internet speeds. USA is still lagging far behind the modern world :D It is really comically, when you think about it: A large super power, but can't even get its act together at make proper interned speed :D

Re:Ha!

[_Sharp'r_]

The flaw in your comment is that it treats the entirety of the USA as one entity when it comes to internet speeds.

I have multiple gigabit fiber providers available to me and pay $70/month for a low latency symmetrical gigabit link to my suburban house at the edge of the city. Other people in some rural areas only have DSL or satellite Internet. Other people in cities are more like me, but there are a few cities where legal restrictions cause some people to be stuck virtually at dial-up.

Lots of different States, different cities, different legal rules and population density/distances over time equal different outcomes. I don't know for sure as I don't live there, but I'd guess Nervei, Norway doesn't have as good of Internet access as I do in the USA, despite being in "Northern Europe".

Re: Ha!

[_Sharp'r_]

That's a list of ISPs which provide service in some part of Norway. It doesn't say anything at all about the specific availability in the locale of Nervei, Norway.

No he didn't

[cascadingstylesheet]

CC Chairman Ajit Pai today thanked Congress for preventing the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules.

No he didn't. That's a ludicrous way of putting it.

Congress didn't "prevent the U.S. government from enforcing net neutrality rules".

Congress was under no obligation to pass a law implementing some past president's policy preferences.

Re:Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[dgatwood]

Every time I see these 'net neutrality' things all I can think about is Idiocracy and the 'its got electrolytes' bit, and the NN version of the same is 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified'.

Competition in a zero sum environment:

The total bandwidth available is not short time frame elastic, its completely static. So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for: Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules. Along comes SUPERNetflix with double goodness and 4X the bandwidth use which everyone starts using because double is mo gooderer, and now they use say 99% of the available bandwidth and the same ISP/trunking/peering companies (yes these numbers are exaggerated) are unable to charge more or negotiate a throttling plan due to the imposed rules.

The net result is all internet traffic is essentially throttled down to a max of 1% and the ISP is handcuffed, unable to charge for fair use, or throttle in the best interest of its customers.

Actually, you're wrong on pretty much every count here. For any sufficiently large ISP, Netflix will *give* the ISP a caching box for their data center that will take the vast majority of Netflix traffic entirely off of the upstream pipes. The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends. And given how often customer premises equipment fails and has to be replaced, it is usually just a matter of upgrading the equipment at the head end. In other words, it is highly short-term elastic.

And even if an ISP doesn't have that arrangement, nobody runs only a single fiber anywhere, so in practice, there is *always* extra fiber capacity available for upgrading the connection between two ISPs.

So the only way you would see the problems you're describing is if an ISP like Comcast gets too big for its britches and insists that Netflix pays a monthly fee to put that caching box in their data center, and then refuses to upgrade the peering point between the ISP's network and Netflix's ISP's network. Which it did. And their mutual customers got screwed, mainly because Comcast thought that throttling Netflix (and only Netflix) would cause more people to buy video-on-demand content from Comcast. And obviously it worked, or else they would have quickly discontinued that experiment.

Short of some sort of regulatory penalty against Comcast and similar ISPs when they pull these shenanigans, nothing will change. Net neutrality was an attempt to use the FCC's regulatory powers to do so. Unfortunately, because their interpretation of the law was purely a regulatory position rather than an explicit piece of legislation, it was subject to the whims of a given administration, and went away when the administration did.

"Criminal Thanks Other Criminals For Help"

[RonVNX]

Fixed that headline for ya.

Re:Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[penandpaper]

The only cost to them, other than the electricity to power the box and the cost of square footage to house it, is the cost of upgrading the infrastructure from the central office to the customer, which is usually a matter of upgrading the equipment at both ends.

An ISP should pay Netflix's rack-space and electricity bill because ???
Netflix should decide when and where an ISP upgrade its infrastructure because ???

Meanwhile, your solution seems to be the government force ISP's to eat those costs because Netflix and Comcast are fighting.

Netflix throttled it's customers and blamed ISPs and from your comment it's apparent why. They want free rack-space, free electricity and the ability to decide an ISP upgrade rollout forced by the government.

Natural Monopolies

[sjbe]

The reason we have cable monopolies is because local governments awarded monopoly service contracts.

That's part of the reason but only a part. A bigger reason is simply that it is economically inefficient for networks to be small - literally network effects. Last mile ISPs are a classic example of a natural monopoly.

You identified part of the problem which is the last mile monopoly/oligopoly. This could be ameliorated by prohibiting companies that deal in content from also owning the lines (or towers) to deliver that content. Then there is minimal conflict of interest and no real reason to charge Netflix more (or less) than anyone else. They should either be in the content delivery business or the content creation business but not both.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[Dynedain]

The ISP doesnâ(TM)t connect directly to Netflix and has no financial arrangement with Netflix. The ISP pays their backbone provider for the unbalanced data coming into the ISPâ(TM)s network. Netflix offered free caching servers so the ISPs could reduce their bandwidth on the backbone and peering agreements, directly reducing their costs. Why wouldnâ(TM)t they take it? Oh, right, because online video services are a threat to the legacy cable TV goose that is reaching menopause and no longer laying golden eggs.

Re:Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[Rhipf]

So an example for sake of argument under the imposed 'bad' NN rules the 'muh bandwidth wuz stranglified' people keep pushing for:
Netflix in North America uses 50%(whatever the real number is doesn't matter) of available bandwidth and pays the same as everyone else under that rule, ISP/trunking/peering companies are unable to charge them more by the imposed rules.

The problem with this statement is that Netflix doesn't pay "the same as everyone else under that rule". They pay a hell of a lot more than I do for Internet access. If Netflix somehow managed to use 99% of the Internet bandwidth that means that 99% of the traffic requests on the Internet are coming from people who wanting Netfix content. Those people are paying their ISP for that requested traffic.
ISPs asking Netflix to pay so they aren't throttled won't make any difference to those 99% requesting Netflix content (other than it will take longer for them to access that content if Netflix doesn't pay). All that will happen is that the 1% of requested traffic will be able to access that content faster (assuming that the other 99% don't decide to move to another service that will then also take up 99% of bandwidth). The only thing that will be accomplished is that your ISP will make more money and be able to start a competing service to Netflix that isn't throttled.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[penandpaper]

Netflix offered free caching servers

Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings? If an ISP gives such favorable treatment to Netflix do they have to give the same treatment to any streaming service/information service provider? Is the ISP liable for colluding with Netflix against a Netflix competitor if they don't offer the same "free" services?

Re:Known lying faggot Lyinwood here to obfuscate

[JoePete]

For the sake of argument, DSL has always been considered common carrier - that it is to say it has always been subject to the FCC's neutrality rules. So if you believe in net neutrality, by all means, use that DSL line. On the contrary, broadband ISPs coming over fiber, coax, satellite, microwave, etc., up until 2015 weren't considered common carriers and are no longer considered common carrier. Which category seems to have undergone the most progress?

Let put this another way. Bad people exist, that is a given. You have bad CEOs running ISPs, but isn't also likely that you will have bad people who become FCC commissioners? So would you rather be subject to the bad people who are FCC commissioners, who have no vested interest in whether you get quality Internet service, or would you rather be subject to the bad CEO who at least has to work a little bit to earn your and other subscriber's monthly dollars?

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[Mr307]

Clearly you do not understand. The speeds quoted at the ISP side barely matter beyond a certain point, no doubt most of the time they are able to deliver that rate for their local connection as advertised, but to suggest that getting that advertised packet rate everywhere on the internet is completely ignorant of how the thing works.

You will not get your 'rated' bandwidth pretty much anywhere but very local to you say within a hop or 3, every hop away adds more latency and all packet speeds are determined by local throughput of each.

Quick sample trace edited to show some important bits, me on my computer somewhere.
  7 47 ms 47 ms 49 ms rc2nr-be110-1.wp.shawcable.net [66.163.76.58]
  8 69 ms 67 ms 67 ms rc3fs-hge0-7-0-0.mt.shawcable.net [66.163.76.22]
  9 75 ms 79 ms 80 ms rc1eqn-tge0-0-0-0.uk.shawcable.net [66.163.78.14]
10 86 ms 83 ms 83 ms rc3ar-tge0-14-0-7.ed.shawcable.net [66.163.75.81
11 83 ms 85 ms 85 ms ge-4-1-0.mpr1.iad10.us.mfnx.net [206.126.236.86]
12 89 ms 83 ms 83 ms ae6.cr1.dca2.us.zip.zayo.com [64.125.20.117]
Destination site elsewhere, 5 networks crossed a total of 20 or so hops for 1 connection.

All of those routers are rate limited in some way, any one of them could be saturated temporarily or otherwise and cause a slowdown for through traffic.

I believe but haven't looked into it in a while that most peering agreements today are still voluntary and something close to 1:1 for traffic on/off. NN really puts a damper on this business angle of the equation.

In short no, you pay for a maximum rate not a guaranteed rate. And chances are you get more down rate than up rate, because generally peering costs are for putting traffic on the network.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[Dynedain]

This has nothing to do with bandwidth, and everything to do with the total amount of traffic on a network (bandwidth is simultaneous capacity, not total volume over a period, which is how all the peering agreements are structured).

Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes. Consumer ISPs generally have much more download traffic than upload traffic, and so they end up paying the backbone providers rather than the other way around.

How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.

CDN providers make similar arrangements to get their boxes inside ISPs' networks to improve latency to customers and reduce the ISPs' costs. Comcast singled out Netflix because it's a threat to their legacy business model.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[penandpaper]

Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes.

Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point. But that is hardly the entire issue. How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house? Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company? A couple here a couple there add up quickly. Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.

How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.

Doesn't matter who made the offer. Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If another competitor requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.

because it's a threat to their legacy business model

Netflix isn't innocent in this. They throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs.

Re:Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[dgatwood]

An ISP should pay Netflix's rack-space and electricity bill because ???

A few key points should explain it:

• The nature of the Internet is that each party must pay for its own bandwidth to the nearest backbone. Netflix pays for the bandwidth it uses to get its data to the backbone by paying its upstream ISP, who pays its upstream ISP, and so on. Similarly, Comcast must do the same.
• The caching equipment reduces the bandwidth, and thus the cost, of both of those connections. Therefore, it benefits Comcast and Netflix approximately equally.
• The hardware costs a lot of money (racks of RAID arrays aren't cheap), and Netflix provides that hardware. Thus, given the equal benefits, it seems entirely reasonable for Comcast to foot the (funny-money) bill for a place to store it plus the trivial cost of electricity, which is dramatically less expensive than the upstream bandwidth they would otherwise have to pay for, and even over the long term, also costs dramatically less than the hardware.

In short, the caching approach represents huge savings for Comcast, and gives them a cost split that is very much in their favor compared with the 50-50 cost split that would occur if they had to pay for bandwidth to the backbone to handle that traffic. The only alternatives are for Comcast to either pay more by using bandwidth and pay a larger percentage of the total cost or to throttle Netflix in an anticompetitive manner and get sued.

Netflix should decide when and where an ISP upgrade its infrastructure because ???

Netflix does no such thing. They provide higher-quality stream options, and the ISP's customers either care enough to demand that the ISP improve its bandwidth or they don't.

Meanwhile, your solution seems to be the government force ISP's to eat those costs because Netflix and Comcast are fighting.

No, the government should force the ISP to eat those costs because Comcast is a monopoly that is behaving anticompetitively.

Re:Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[penandpaper]

Again, it seems that you are saying that Netflix can dictate the business of an ISP to be favorable to Netflix hidden behind the "customers either care enough to demand that the ISP improve its bandwidth or they don't.". As I have asked below:

How many other streaming services/information service providers does the ISP have to accommodate with free rack-space and electricity? Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If a competitor to Netflix requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? At what point is an ISP just free rack space and electricity for information service providers because you view it as "trivial cost". It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[dgatwood]

Netflix offered free caching servers

Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings?

For an ISP the size of Comcast and a content provide the size of Netflix, it is cheaper by nearly four orders of magnitude. Netflix actually publishes information about their caching servers online, though I can't find the power specifications, so I can only take a rough guess based on the typical power consumption of blade servers in that form factor.

I would not expect a 2U rack unit to draw much more than 1 kW of power, which at 8 cents per kWH costs about $700 per year to keep it powered. Each box can provide 10 GB per second of throughput, which is enough to handle 26,000 streams at 3 Mbps (this is an arbitrary example), or 2.6 cents per continuous stream per year. By contrast, a single upstream T3 trunk line costs about $36,000 per year, and can provide enough bandwidth for about ten streams at 3 Mbps, or $1,200 per continuous stream per year.

If an ISP gives such favorable treatment to Netflix do they have to give the same treatment to any streaming service/information service provider?

No, most streaming providers partner with companies like Akamai to do the same thing until they get big enough to warrant their own servers. And when they do, the ISP would be utterly stupid to not agree to a similar arrangement—utterly stupid almost beyond the limits of human imagination.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[dgatwood]

Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes.

Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point.

The agreements would exist, but the total traffic (and thus, the total cost of those agreements) would be much, much less.

But that is hardly the entire issue. How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house? Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company? A couple here a couple there add up quickly. Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.

The reason the ISP has to do it is because they are a monopoly, and their only viable legal alternative is to provide enough bandwidth to their upstream providers so that their in-house video-on-demand services are not guilty of unfair competition against external video-on-demand services like Netflix et al. And the answer to the question of how many other services is "all of them" with the sole exceptions being external service that are so small that it is cheaper to provide enough bandwidth instead.

Or if they would prefer, Comcast could shut down all of their cable TV and video-on-demand services and become a pure ISP.

Those are the options.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[dgatwood]

Netflix isn't innocent in this. They throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs.

Citation needed.

As far as I'm aware, the only throttling Netflix has ever done has been in the form of providing lower-bitrate streams to pay-by-the-byte cellular customers, and they have never blamed the ISPs for this money-saving feature.

Re: Muh Bandwidth wuz STRANGLED!

[Dynedain]

Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point.

Yes, that is how traffic is and always has been metered between networks.

How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house?

None. Netflix traffic constitutes much of the ISP's usage, so Netflix offered a way for the ISP to reduce their costs. Netflix received no direct benefit here other than improved customer satisfaction from better latency. ISPs setup similar arrangements with other companies all the time. This is how CDNs work.

Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company?

They aren't dictating anything. How do you possibly come to that conclusion?

Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.

You have a warped perspective. Netflix didn't demand anything, they volunteered a way for the ISP to cut costs. They receive no money from the consumer ISP and have no direct business with the consumer ISP. Netflix offered a way for the consumer ISPs to reduce their costs by aggregating and reducing the amount of Netflix traffic on their network. Some took them up on it. Comcast however decided to explicitly throttle Netflix traffic on their network instead, because online streaming is a threat to legacy cable TV. The reports were made public and there are countless articles about it if you do a few minutes of research instead of blindly spouting off whatever nonsense comes to your head.