Obama saves net neutrality, orders broadband be classified as vital service

[Lief 🗽]

How come the greatest city in the world doesn't have fiber yet? Thanks De Blasio!

We've had it for a while actually.  I don't know if the entire city does, but certainly every white neighborhood has it.

Oooh, is that the Verizon Fios thing? Yeah we don't get that up here.

[bedstuy]

How come the greatest city in the world doesn't have fiber yet? Thanks De Blasio!

We've had it for a while actually.  I don't know if the entire city does, but certainly every white neighborhood has it.

Oooh, is that the Verizon Fios thing? Yeah we don't get that up here.

Yes.  That's weird that you haven't gotten Fios in your neighborhood yet.  Probably too many black people for Verizon's taste. 

[traininthedistance]

How come the greatest city in the world doesn't have fiber yet? Thanks De Blasio!

We've had it for a while actually.  I don't know if the entire city does, but certainly every white neighborhood has it.

Oooh, is that the Verizon Fios thing? Yeah we don't get that up here.

Yes.  That's weird that you haven't gotten Fios in your neighborhood yet.  Probably too many black people for Verizon's taste.  

My building has been having HIGH DRAMA about whether to get Fios or not.  The board seems to be worried that the installation will mar the old architectural details and Verizon won't give us a good deal or something, but there's one gadfly– who seems to have a bucket full of good ideas but is somewhat impractical and abrasive– who has been pushing especially hard for it and basically called them liars to their face at the annual meeting a few weeks ago.

Fun times.

[AggregateDemand]

Bandwidth is not being "depleted". Entrenched monopolies are declining to upgrade last mile infrastructure because they're focused on the (very) short-term, and are likewise refusing to properly maintain or upgrade their connections with other Tier One providers in an attempt to kill Netflix and similar video streaming services. All so the ISPs who are also content providers can attempt to keep their dying business model of grossly overcharging for video no one wants to watch alive a little longer.

How else are businesses supposed to behave. As far as I can tell, the government simply realizes that it has a leadership responsibility, then it abdicates its responsibility at the first available opportunity. See also: minimum wage.

[Brittain33]

I look forward to Cruz and GOPers running on repealing net neutrality in 2016. I'm sure it will be a big winner.

Rick Santorum should run on this issue. Combined with his trying to shut down the National Weather Service because Accu-weather made a campaign donation to him, we have a clear and broad vision for the role of government in infrastructure.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Perhaps the main reason why net neutrality is so important is that in many areas one ISP has a monopoly. So if they start throttling in ways you don't like, you can't just switch to a non-throttling competitor. Assuming there even is one, even most places without monopolies don't have many options, even in Minneapolis there's only two in the whole city: Comcast and CenturyLink. You can get USI Wireless in some areas as well but if you live literally a block away from a coverage area you can't. Also in rural areas you might have only one option for high speed internet, you could switch, but to slower and unreliable depending on the weather satellite internet.

That's why the standard libertarian excuse of "RAR RAR FREE MARKET!" doesn't work in this case, because internet access simply ISN'T a free market in many areas.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I still haven't heard any arguments against net neutrality that have any grounding in reality.

"President Obama supports it, therefore we must oppose it" - Republicans.

That's realistic, no?

[IceSpear]

I still haven't heard any arguments against net neutrality that have any grounding in reality.

"President Obama supports it, therefore we must oppose it" - Republicans.

That's realistic, no?

If only Obama would come out against breathing.

[bedstuy]

I still haven't heard any arguments against net neutrality that have any grounding in reality.

"President Obama supports it, therefore we must oppose it" - Republicans.

That's realistic, no?

If only Obama would come out against breathing.

To be fair, this is also an issue of corporate greed. 

Big corporate interests pay lobbyists and think-tanks to feed information to the propaganda arms of the Republican party.  This is no different than how the oil and gas industry spreads the idea that the jury is still out on global warming. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FCC chair says he cares more about the telecom companies he lobbied for than what the fool who nominated him says.

[Mehmentum]

So my question is, why did Obama wait until after the election to do this? 

[MurrayBannerman]

So my question is, why did Obama wait until after the election to do this? 

Because he's a cool guy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

How does net neutrality "deplete" more of the capacity on the internet than a hypothetical system that allowed certain traffic to have priority?

I'm not clear on the technical aspects of this, but I think the basic principle here would be that with a limited amount of bandwidth available, pricing is a method of managing demand. If providers of high bandwidth content want it to get through efficiently, they can pay more for that. On the one hand a provider like Netflix would be able to provide more reliable service, but with an increased cost. This increased cost could spur the content provider to be more efficient in its use of bandwidth, or it might mean higher cost for the consumer, which would redirect entertainment to other formats, freeing up that bandwidth for other activities.

I realize there are all sorts of reasons why this might not work out, but to get rid of any sort of congestion pricing-type mechanism, as net neutrality would seem to imply, how is the rationing of a limited amount of bandwidth supposed to occur under net neutrality?

[bedstuy]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

How does net neutrality "deplete" more of the capacity on the internet than a hypothetical system that allowed certain traffic to have priority?

I'm not clear on the technical aspects of this, but I think the basic principle here would be that with a limited amount of bandwidth available, pricing is a method of managing demand. If providers of high bandwidth content want it to get through efficiently, they can pay more for that. On the one hand a provider like Netflix would be able to provide more reliable service, but with an increased cost. This increased cost could spur the content provider to be more efficient in its use of bandwidth, or it might mean higher cost for the consumer, which would redirect entertainment to other formats, freeing up that bandwidth for other activities.

I realize there are all sorts of reasons why this might not work out, but to get rid of any sort of congestion pricing-type mechanism, as net neutrality would seem to imply, how is the rationing of a limited amount of bandwidth supposed to occur under net neutrality?

I understand what you're saying, but that really a situation of a solution in search of a problem.

We have these open internet rules that have served us very well over the years.  Lycos and Yahoo couldn't use their market power to crush Google.  Myspace couldn't crush Facebook by paying off the ISPs.  The openness on the public internet also allows new technologies to spring up because data is treated like data.  You didn't need to reprogram the internet whenever a new application was invented or pay some ridiculous up front fee to experiment in a new business.  That's all important to protect for the good of the consumers.  Also, remember that consumers largely have little to no choice over which ISP they use as most areas have at most 2 broadband services.

And, your response is, but what about poor Netflix and Google?  Well, they don't need a fast lane on the public internet because they can use peering agreements with ISPs.  Google has servers inside your ISP that allows Youtube to run faster.  And, by the way, Netflix and Google seem to be happy with this Net Neutrality decision.  They're more worried about ISPs using their monopoly position in an anti-competitive way than they are worried about lack of bandwidth on the public internet. 

[AggregateDemand]

We have these open internet rules that have served us very well over the years. 

Such as?

[bedstuy]

We have these open internet rules that have served us very well over the years. 

Such as?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If bandwidth is not being depleted and is some unlimited resource, then why has there been all this controversy over how to handle spectrum reallocation?  Why have they been trying to get broadcasters to lessen their use of the spectrum?

How does net neutrality "deplete" more of the capacity on the internet than a hypothetical system that allowed certain traffic to have priority?

I'm not clear on the technical aspects of this, but I think the basic principle here would be that with a limited amount of bandwidth available, pricing is a method of managing demand. If providers of high bandwidth content want it to get through efficiently, they can pay more for that. On the one hand a provider like Netflix would be able to provide more reliable service, but with an increased cost. This increased cost could spur the content provider to be more efficient in its use of bandwidth, or it might mean higher cost for the consumer, which would redirect entertainment to other formats, freeing up that bandwidth for other activities.

I realize there are all sorts of reasons why this might not work out, but to get rid of any sort of congestion pricing-type mechanism, as net neutrality would seem to imply, how is the rationing of a limited amount of bandwidth supposed to occur under net neutrality?

I understand what you're saying, but that really a situation of a solution in search of a problem.

We have these open internet rules that have served us very well over the years.  Lycos and Yahoo couldn't use their market power to crush Google.  Myspace couldn't crush Facebook by paying off the ISPs.  The openness on the public internet also allows new technologies to spring up because data is treated like data.  You didn't need to reprogram the internet whenever a new application was invented or pay some ridiculous up front fee to experiment in a new business.  That's all important to protect for the good of the consumers.  Also, remember that consumers largely have little to no choice over which ISP they use as most areas have at most 2 broadband services.

And, your response is, but what about poor Netflix and Google?  Well, they don't need a fast lane on the public internet because they can use peering agreements with ISPs.  Google has servers inside your ISP that allows Youtube to run faster.  And, by the way, Netflix and Google seem to be happy with this Net Neutrality decision.  They're more worried about ISPs using their monopoly position in an anti-competitive way than they are worried about lack of bandwidth on the public internet. 

I have no idea what post you were reading that made you think my concern is for "poor Netflix and Google."  It clearly wasn't one of mine.  My concern is having an internet with a capacity that allows it to be free from congestion. I don't know what you said here has to do with that. And how do the peering and special servers inside ISPs not run afoul of the idea of net neutrality?

As far as I can tell, the solution in search of a problem here is net neutrality. Have ISPs been crushing upstart content providers?  If they ever do, and people can't get access to a wide range of content due to deliberate blocking by the ISP, then there will be a demand for more open ISP.  If under such circumstances the ISPs still maintain a monopoly, then it is the monopoly that is the problem, not the lack of net neutrality.

[bedstuy]

I have no idea what post you were reading that made you think my concern is for "poor Netflix and Google."  It clearly wasn't one of mine.  My concern is having an internet with a capacity that allows it to be free from congestion. I don't know what you said here has to do with that. And how do the peering and special servers inside ISPs not run afoul of the idea of net neutrality?

As far as I can tell, the solution in search of a problem here is net neutrality. Have ISPs been crushing upstart content providers?  If they ever do, and people can't get access to a wide range of content due to deliberate blocking by the ISP, then there will be a demand for more open ISP.  If under such circumstances the ISPs still maintain a monopoly, then it is the monopoly that is the problem, not the lack of net neutrality.

Is there actually a problem with the traffic on the internet backbone servers outpacing the advances in fiber optic technology?  As I understand it, that's not a problem.

As for the peering question, I see your point as far as competitive practices go.  Google has a competitive advantage by putting their servers inside your ISP.  But, the servers at your ISP are not the "internet," you're not going through an internet exchange point to access that content.  And, it's not slowing down other traffic to speed up Google, it's just making Youtube run faster by giving you a shortcut, so there is no real detriment to the consumer.

[The Mikado]

Perhaps the main reason why net neutrality is so important is that in many areas one ISP has a monopoly. So if they start throttling in ways you don't like, you can't just switch to a non-throttling competitor. Assuming there even is one, even most places without monopolies don't have many options, even in Minneapolis there's only two in the whole city: Comcast and CenturyLink. You can get USI Wireless in some areas as well but if you live literally a block away from a coverage area you can't. Also in rural areas you might have only one option for high speed internet, you could switch, but to slower and unreliable depending on the weather satellite internet.

That's why the standard libertarian excuse of "RAR RAR FREE MARKET!" doesn't work in this case, because internet access simply ISN'T a free market in many areas.

BRTD is, of course, right on the money here.  Getting rid of net neutrality doesn't mean "if your ISP is screwing with you, ditch them," because the ISPs are actually collaborating to not compete and carve out their own zones of exclusive influence.  It's closer to a cartel than a competitive industry, and as a result there is no way for consumers to punish bad corporate actors.

[Bacon King]

words

The proper analogy for the internet isn't burgers or the Panama Canal. The proper analogy is to compare internet service providers with the power company. The former charges you to send ones and zeroes through their lines, the latter charges you for electricity sent through their lines. A kW/h is a kW/h regardless of what it's powering, just like a kbps is a kbps regardless of the transmission's content. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if power companies were allowed to charge you different rates to power your washing machine depending on its brand?

[AggregateDemand]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

This is not closely related to Net Neutrality regulations proposed by Congress. We've not had comprehensive net neutrality regulations and that's why net neutrality is a thing now.

Content providers are no longer the same as ISPs. Why is this reason for new regulation? Because Verizon is no longer interested in building a network for Netflix?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So my question is, why did Obama wait until after the election to do this? 

Because the cable industry is one of the largest lobbying groups on Capitol Hill. Taking action on the issue as a lame duck is the ideal time, because it severely reduces their ability to inflict retribution on the White House.

[AggregateDemand]

The proper analogy for the internet isn't burgers or the Panama Canal. The proper analogy is to compare internet service providers with the power company. The former charges you to send ones and zeroes through their lines, the latter charges you for electricity sent through their lines. A kW/h is a kW/h regardless of what it's powering, just like a kbps is a kbps regardless of the transmission's content. Wouldn't it be ridiculous if power companies were allowed to charge you different rates to power your washing machine depending on its brand?

So you've never paid an electricity bill? The power companies charge different rates based upon demand relative to capacity, which is similar to what the ISPs are proposing.

[bedstuy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite

This is not closely related to Net Neutrality regulations proposed by Congress. We've not had comprehensive net neutrality regulations and that's why net neutrality is a thing now.

Content providers are no longer the same as ISPs. Why is this reason for new regulation? Because Verizon is no longer interested in building a network for Netflix?

You don't know what you're talking about and that makes two of us, so...

[CountryClassSF]

Net neutrality is essentially a socialist internet. Say NO!