Net Neutrality Explained

[JumpinJack]

The vote was to prevent ISP's from charging companies and people more money for the content and where it was going. It's getting the same protection that phone lines get. That means Comcast will not charge you more money for using services like Netflix instead of XFinity and so on.

Well, not quite. What was happening was that Comcast throttled Netflix, until Netflix paid $100M to ensure it wouldn't be throttled. It has nothing to do with what Comcast charged the consumer, except of course that the consumer had paid to watch Netflix but couldn't because Comcast prevented it, until Netflix paid a "special fee."

The regs ban broadband providers from unreasonably throttling or blocking various services, at its own discretion....period. If a consumer pays for certain mbps from Comcast, it should get that, or close to it, without Comcast deciding to block or throttle that service at certain times. And if a consumer pays to stream Netflix, it should be able to do so, just like streaming any other service, w/o Comcast throttling it.

So Comcast wasn't charging consumers more. It was charging what was basically a blackmail fee to certain businesses, or Comcast would throttle its services. Small businesses can't pay such fees, of course. And the huge amounts demanded from the large ones ($100M for Netflix) is passed along to consumers by the busines that pays the fee. All for just ensuring they actually get what they had already paid for.

 

[Renae]

The vote was to prevent ISP's from charging companies and people more money for the content and where it was going. It's getting the same protection that phone lines get. That means Comcast will not charge you more money for using services like Netflix instead of XFinity and so on.

Sure that's what it was about, that''s why the rules are posted for all to see right?

 

[JumpinJack]

Here's the simple fact.

For all those claiming that this is "Keeping the internet as it is today" then the FCC will take NO proactive actions. Any regulatory action they take will simply be reactionary to attempts by telecoms to take action that would alter the notion of a free internet.

If the FCC begins to take pro-active regulatory action and impliment things, like a tax, onto service providers then it most definitely is not "keeping the internet as it is today" and legitimately is simply a regulatory power grab aimed at allowing the government to CONTROL internet access as opposed to MAINTAIN the status quo.

Well, the man in the second video didn't seem to get all his facts straight. Fact is....TWC and Comcast DO currently throttle at certain times (search the internet), in lieu of upgrading their equipment to meet demand. And Comcast DID throttle Netflix until Netflix paid a "special fee" to Comcast for it not to throttle ($100M). A broadband provider DID block certain information from the internet in the past. The regulations ban unreasonable throttling and blocking at the broadband providers discretion. The broadband servics now being declared to be a common carrier, much like telephone lines. Can you imaging AT&T cutting off your phone calls from certain numbers at certain times because it decides it doesn't like the content of the conversations? Or inserting static in your line to decrease your calls because it thinks you're getting too many phone calls?

That's all it is. It isn't a takeover or running the internet. It is more than keeping the status quo, though, contrary to what that second video said, IMO. It should keep the theoretical status quo, but in reality, there IS throttling going on as we speak. And there is an active agreement between Netflix and Comcast for the broadband provider not to throttle Netflix's services, in return for payment of $100M. That agreement would no longer be necessary, if throttling is banned.

Broadband providers also prioritize certain internet sites. I THINK, but am not sure, that would be banned.

 

[chad1389]

It's merely banning certain practices like throttling (broadband providers throttling certain services or blocking certain content that THEY decide on....unless a business pays them a "special fee" not to do so). TWC and Comcast regularly throttle during peak hours, instead of upgrading equipment to meet demand, is my understanding. Except for the services that have paid them a fee not to do so. Netflix pays about $100M a year to ensure consistent service.

It's no different than the regulations covering landline services by telephone companies, or regs covering FedEx. It's a shame the regs were required to prevent unfair practices. But apparently they were. In no way is that the government "running" the internet. You should watch the videos. They explain these things.

I've had to explain this twice now. I was talking to MickyW when I wrote that. My comment is directed at him. The Obamacare thing was a joke. He stated the FCC was trying to censor the internet, which I know they are not, due to the fact that you cannot censor it. There is too much information on the internet to do that. Hence the deepweb reference.

 

[Stewart]

Yep, it's expensive to get the wire in but leasing someone else's wire doesn't really help the situation when your projected demand requires more data than that cable will handle. The only solution is more and better cable. That's why charging based on user need is so important.

It's unlikely that cable would be the limiting factor. Upgrading the infrastructure to docsis 3.1 could be done without relaying cable/installing fibre.

 

[Stewart]

I'm so confused.

I have some questions I hope will help me understand:

1. Let's say I'm a provider like Netflix with a big server farm in Nevada. My customer base doubles, so I double my capacity. Does net neutrality mean that my ISP can't charge me more for doubling my bandwidth use?

2. Let's say I'm an avid viewer of anime and Netflix doubles their inventory of anime movies and TV shows which causes me to go into a marathon anime session lasting 3 months and tripling my internet use. Does net neutrality mean that my ISP can't charge me for the increased use?

3. Let's say I don't pay my residential ISP provider for 3 months. Does net neutrality mean they can't cut off my service?

4. Let's say that the proliferation of content providers of movies and videos causes overall traffic on the internet to start to exceed capacity. Does net neutrality mean that the major ISP providers can't charge more to cover the cost of more capacity?

Thanks for any replies.

1. No, you'd be responsible for negotiating extra bandwidth with your upstream ISP.

2. ATM, most people pay for "unlimited" bandwidth and therefore there shouldn't be any issues. If you were on a cap like the new (really ****ty) comcast plans than you would be responsible for purchasing additional bandwidth or face a shaped (slowed) internet service.

3. Nope, you don't pay for your service it get's disconnected.

4. No, not at all. ISPs are free to increase the price of their increased infrastructure spend onto the consumers.

Net Neutrality requires the ISPs is the principle that the ISPs should treat all data-bits equally irrespective of it's source.
Comcast for instance can't slow down netflix packet's to make it's own VOD service more appealing. Netflix's service may still be slower than Comcast due to upstream considerations.

I don't know what actually may be concerned in the FCC ruling, but that's what NN is. It's pretty simple really. I don't necessarily support the FCC decision and waiting to see what it will actually entail. I don't think Title II reclassification was the best way to ensure NN.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

In 2015 Verizon suppose to release a service similar to Netflix. Streaming movies, TV shows, live channels, etc. I think Verizon's announcement in 2013 jump started this net neutrality talk. Because of Verizon's, and other ISP's awful record and past history of throttling streaming services I think many people believed once Verizon started their own service there would nothing stopping them from completely choking off their competition, in this case Netflix, Hulu, etc. The argument that all the customer will have to do is go to another ISP doesn't work because in many cases there is only 1 ISP in certain neighborhoods and areas. Besides it's safe to say all the ISP's will be releasing their own services which mean they'll all be trying to kill Netflix.

These new regulations will stop them from doing that.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

. . . . In no way is that the government "running" the internet.. . .

Wow. How naive and stupid of you.

 

[TerryOfromCA]

The Obama Administration could not build a functional health insurance exchange website despite spending a mind-boggling $2.1 billion of taxpayer money, but now feels it is capable of essentially managing the entire Internet. On February 26, a small group of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats -- three, to be exact -- voted to give the federal government the instant authority to reclassify the Internet from a free, uninhibited mode of communication and commerce into a "public utility" the same as your old phone company, so it can now be "better regulated" -- and all under the phony guise of making everything more "fair." Now, when Comcast or Verizon provide services to your home, they will have to do so "in the public interest," whatever that means. In a partisan move, the Federal Communications Commission's two Democrat members and its Democrat chairman voted to approve the new reclassification and associated rules over the objections of the panel's two Republican members. As Fox News and other media reported, the rules remained secret right up to the vote, though one member, Republican Ajit Pai, tried to sound the alarm about the bogus nature of the plan -- and against FCC panel rules -- in the days before the vote.

FULL STORY: Unelected federal bureaucrats approve government takeover of the Internet - NaturalNews.com

 

[NeverTrump]

Internet, RIP?

Today the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), a non-elected federal government agency, voted three-to-two to reclassify broadband Internet as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act. This means that – without the vote of Congress, the peoples’ branch of government – a federal agency now claims the power to regulate the Internet. I am surprised that even among civil liberties groups, some claim the federal government increasing regulation of the Internet somehow increases our freedom and liberty.

The truth is very different. The adoption of these FCC rules on the Internet represents the largest regulatory power grab in recent history. The FCC’s newly adopted rule takes the most dynamic means of communication and imposes the regulatory structure designed for public utilities. Federal regulation could also open the door to de facto censorship of ideas perceived as threatening to the political class – ideas like the troops should be brought home, the PATRIOT Act should be repealed, military spending and corporate welfare should be cut, and the Federal Reserve should be audited and ended.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/february/26/internet-rip/

The Ron Paul Institute?? Seriously? As a huge critic of Net Neutrality, I hate how construed the Republican opposition is to it. They don't understand. They think it's "government regulating the internet." While that may be technically correct, the way they all talk about it is close to being a paranoid conspiracy theory. Which is also technically how all this Net Neutrality crap began anyway.

There are real concerns in the telecom and tech industry about what such sweeping regulations would mean for future app and content developers.

 

[JumpinJack]

Sure that's what it was about, that''s why the rules are posted for all to see right?

Well, not quite. What was happening was that Comcast throttled Netflix, until Netflix paid $100M to ensure it wouldn't be throttled. It has nothing to do with what Comcast charged the consumer, except of course that the consumer had paid to watch Netflix but couldn't because Comcast prevented it, until Netflix paid a "special fee."

The regs ban broadband providers from unreasonably throttling or blocking various services, at its own discretion....period. If a consumer pays for certain mbps from Comcast, it should get that, or close to it, without Comcast deciding to block or throttle that service at certain times. And if a consumer pays to stream Netflix, it should be able to do so, just like streaming any other service, w/o Comcast throttling it.

So Comcast wasn't charging consumers more. It was charging what was basically a blackmail fee to certain businesses, or Comcast would throttle its services. Small businesses can't pay such fees, of course. And the huge amounts demanded from the large ones ($100M for Netflix) is passed along to consumers by the busines that pays the fee. All for just ensuring they actually get what they had already paid for.

 

[JumpinJack]

Wow. How naive and stupid of you.

Wow. How un-partisan and intelligent of a post by you.

Yes, Virginia. I apparently know a bit more about this than you. Watch the videos I posted. It explains it all to idiots like you. If you support businesses, you 100% support net neutrality. If you don't support businesses, and particularly small businesses, you are against net neutrality. It's that simple.

It's just a shame that regs have to be passed to prevent broadband providers from blackmailing businesses.

 

[Renae]

Well, not quite. What was happening was that Comcast throttled Netflix, until Netflix paid $100M to ensure it wouldn't be throttled. It has nothing to do with what Comcast charged the consumer, except of course that the consumer had paid to watch Netflix but couldn't because Comcast prevented it, until Netflix paid a "special fee."

The regs ban broadband providers from unreasonably throttling or blocking various services, at its own discretion....period. If a consumer pays for certain mbps from Comcast, it should get that, or close to it, without Comcast deciding to block or throttle that service at certain times. And if a consumer pays to stream Netflix, it should be able to do so, just like streaming any other service, w/o Comcast throttling it.

So Comcast wasn't charging consumers more. It was charging what was basically a blackmail fee to certain businesses, or Comcast would throttle its services. Small businesses can't pay such fees, of course. And the huge amounts demanded from the large ones ($100M for Netflix) is passed along to consumers by the busines that pays the fee. All for just ensuring they actually get what they had already paid for.

Except that it started with Netflix changing the deal and how they routed traffic putting a huge burden on Comcast, but that's never discussed because "COMCAST EVIL!! GOVERNMENT ****ING SAVE US!!!

 

[LowDown]

The Ron Paul Institute?? Seriously? As a huge critic of Net Neutrality, I hate how construed the Republican opposition is to it. They don't understand. They think it's "government regulating the internet." While that may be technically correct, the way they all talk about it is close to being a paranoid conspiracy theory. Which is also technically how all this Net Neutrality crap began anyway.

There are real concerns in the telecom and tech industry about what such sweeping regulations would mean for future app and content developers.

Conservatives have seen how regulatory agencies abuse their powers. No matter how well intentioned on the surface, these government regulations tend to serve other interests such as the interests of the big industry players. They, for example, lock out smaller competition by enforcing quality requirements that are out of the reach of start ups and other smaller companies.

The cost of regulation tends to grow over time until it smothers everything. Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank imposes huge costs on industry. These costs, of course, are passed on to the consumer, you and I.

US citizens living abroad find US regulations so onerous that they are renouncing their US citizenships to get away from them. They can't find banks that are willing to take their accounts because of all the US regulations that attach to US citizens, for example.

It's astonishing to me to find that so many people completely trust the government and completely distrust industry. They appear to be blind to the fact that government regulation gives rise to many problems; many of the things they most hate about corporations are due to the way the government regulates them. Everything, literally everything about American health care from the cost of service to how billing is done to how insurance works to whether or not you get a private room in a hospital is due to government regulation. So if you find billing statements incomprehensible and can't get a straight answer about what services will cost and can't figure out insurance benefits and find that you can't get a private room without paying extra or resent having to pay a co pay then you can thank the government without which none of that would be a problem and overall costs would be much less. But people blame the health care providers and the insurance companies for this state of affairs. Insurance company executives can't even so much as sneeze without government approval.

So I doubt very much that FCC regulation will mean improvement in Internet service or even basic fairness. We will find ourselves hating ISPs without realizing why they suck so much.