no more open internet :'( sad day in history

[victorzamora]

Your comparison is inaccurate. Net neutrality rules are about ensuring ISPs treat all content the same. Applying the same rules to shipping would be like requiring that all packages of equal size and weight (and travelling the same route) are charged the same for shipping, regardless of what the boxes contain. (Assuming the content doesn't present any hazards.)

Let's just assume you're right. Are you saying that the shipping services shouldn't be allowed to charge more for HazMat boxes of the same size/weight as more inert materials?

Look- I'm not sure where I stand in terms of the repeal. My point was simply that John Oliver isn't where I'd go to find news. The rhetoric around this has been rooted more in emotion than fact. The fact is that regulations in/around the internet are incredibly complex concerns that can't be summarized in one silly/biased rant by a nutjob.

There are potentially serious, long-term implications here. I'd rather make decisions based off of facts and logic than getting wrapped up in emotion. Net Neutrality was simply shifting power from one group of corporate giants to another, and, unfortunately, it seems like this move will simply shift it back.

 

[Diver0001]

Net neutrality rules don't give the government control over the internet. If they want control they will justify the need and they will take it. If we allow the ISPs to have more control over how content is delivered we will actually make it easier for the government to come in at some future crisis time and seize control over the mechanisms that will now be implemented to control what can easily be uploaded and delivered via the internet.

Ray, with all due respect, when has "government regulation" not given the government the ability to control what ever it is that is being regulated?

In some instances regulation is absolutely necessary in order to curb monopolies, abuses and excesses that adversely affect open market forces. In this case, however, the government was trying to regulate ISP's so they could be stopped from doing something that they were not doing. Don't you find that weird? I do. Governments all over the world, and particularly in places with a more "left" leaning tendency have been "proactively" regulating technology for some time and the main effect it has has is to stifle innovation. That is one of the reasons I believe the USA still leads Europe in technology innovation despite comparatively slumping academic performance.

But why proactively regulate this? That's kind of like saying "guilty until proven innocent". It doesn't make sense. So you have to ask yourself. Who are the beneficiaries of that? I've already explained why content providers wanted net neutrality but what's in it for government?

For individual congressmen and women it's clear. Some of them are bought and gain financially for it. But the process isn't not just about bought politicians.

Part of that answer I already gave you which was to simplify the legal landscape surrounding copyright issues with digital content. But that in itself could have been regulated without net neutrality.

So what does government GAIN by defining the internet as a utility? Let that sink in.

R..

 

[ljpm]

No... I'm not.

Net neutrality, as I said before has to do with two issues:

1) who does the consumer pay (ie.... who PROFITS) from the delivery of content to the end user? Content providers lobbied successfully that THEY own the content and THEY should be the sole recipients of the funds spent to view that content.

If you EVER had any confusion about why net neutrality was a "thing" then this is it. When in doubt... follow the money. The content providers are behind this. They do not want to share their profits with ISP's. End of discussion. In the view of content providers the ISP's are like internet Umpah-Lumpahs that, like any good slave, just do what they are told.... namely... deliver data to the end user.

There has been a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of really convincing sounding rhetoric about net neutrality but when you follow the money, THIS .. AND THIS ALONE is the main issue at play. It's about who gets the consumer's money.

That's it. That's ALL of it. Behind all the smoke an mirrors... this is the ONLY issue at play.... ok... not the only issue but the main one.

The other issue is this:

2) policy makers have a big issue to deal with right now and that is the issue of who OWNS the content. In some cases it's very clear. Ever wonder why Netflix makes its own content? It's because of copyright. Nobody can sue Netflix if they make their own content. Why is Star Trek available in Europe but not in the USA (as a hypothetical example)? Because of licencing. Who is responsible if someone can see Capt. Picard without a licence? That's the issue. Who can be sued for copyright violations.

If you allow the ISP's to be a stakeholder in this then you cannot compartmentalize that issue. I've said it before but people didn't seem to understand it. The SOURCE content producers.. the producers.... don't know who to sue for copyright infringement when both the content provider AND the ISP are "partially" guilty of making it possible for the consumer to break the law.

I know people have a hard time understanding this issue but it's really a "thing" in policy circles. Who is legally responsible for illegal content? It's a thing. I don't think most people really "get" this but it is a very complex legal minefield that policy makers try to simplify by reducing the number of players. Net neutrality gives policy makers such a mechanism. They can take ISP's out of the legal loop by defining them as a "utility".

Yes... stuff really does work like this in the real world at the policy level.... and THIS is one of the major forces driving net neutrality.

R..

I'm not really understanding your argument. 1st let me start by saying I work in Intellectual Property. I do understand about copyright. Net neutrality has nothing to do with copyright. With or without net neutrality copyright holders will still control their property. As for sharing profits, providers (copyright holders) and distributors (netflix) pay ISP's just like you and I. I have no idea what the agreements are or what prices are paid, but I do know that my internet has 25 Mbps download and only 2 Mbps upload. Now if I want to have a faster upload I really have to pay. I am therefore pretty sure that companies like NetFlix pay substantial amounts of money for their uploads.

What changes with the lost of net neutrality is that the ISP's can now play favorites when it comes to delivery. They can now charge NetFlix more for instance it they want priority delivery of service. That's the money trail you are talking about. We are going to see the ISP's go the way of internet searching. Rather than getting the content we want we are going to get the content that has paid the ISP to be delivered. Just like google searches at one time were great and now are simply a list of the companies that have paid the most to google.

We are also going to see a slow fracturing of services. You will start to see exclusivity agreements. One ISP will favor Hulu and another will favor netflix and a third HBO. If you want the content from all three you will need to pay all three ISP.

Here is an example of what is happening in Canada and not only do we have net neutrality, our government is dedicated to protecting it.
Not Just Bell: Shaw Calls on CRTC To Support Website Blocking - Michael Geist
Michael Geist is a very well known Intellectual property lawyer as well faculty member at U of Ottawa.
Our internet providers want the power to block web pages without oversight.

 

[ljpm]

Ray, with all due respect, when has "government regulation" not given the government the ability to control what ever it is that is being regulated?


So what does government GAIN by defining the internet as a utility? Let that sink in.

R..

This seems a rather paranoid view. Although I guess the same could be said about my lack of trust in big corporations doing what is good for the people instead of making profits.

Defining an ISP's as a utility basically means that they must provide the same service to all.

 

[Diver0001]

This seems a rather paranoid view. Although I guess the same could be said about my lack of trust in big corporations doing what is good for the people instead of making profits.

Defining an ISP's as a utility basically means that they must provide the same service to all.

Except when....?

R..

 

[Diver0001]

I do understand about copyright.

In the sense that it doesn't have to with who owns the copyright, you are obviously correct. The issue to which I was referring has to do with copyright infringement.

For example, in the Netherlands there was an ISP that was held legally responsible for delivering data from a torrent site (I believe it was Pirate Bay). The Dutch legislators who were dealing with the aftermath of this in the context of Net Neutrality have been very clear that by defining the ISP's as a utility it provides a legal mechanism to isolate them from these kinds of law suits. The current approach is (a) go after the content providers if you can and (b) go after end users if the content provider is hiding in a foreign safe haven like Russia.

So yes, it absolutely has to do with copyright.

R..

 

[Diver0001]

What changes with the lost of net neutrality is that the ISP's can now play favorites when it comes to delivery. They can now charge NetFlix more for instance it they want priority delivery of service. That's the money trail you are talking about. We are going to see the ISP's go the way of internet searching. Rather than getting the content we want we are going to get the content that has paid the ISP to be delivered. Just like google searches at one time were great and now are simply a list of the companies that have paid the most to google.

Yes. What you are saying is definitely a risk and ostensibly the public debate about net neutrality has focused on this. Question. Why should it matter to you as an end user how much Google pays for it's upload? Why should government be involved in mediating this, which is the defacto situation with net neutrality?

Here is an example of what is happening in Canada and not only do we have net neutrality, our government is dedicated to protecting it.

Yeah.... well.... I'd love to talk to you about Canadian politics but it would get the thread moved to the pub. For now I guess you can just add this to the list of complaints

 

[Diver0001]

Here is a post I made about 3 years ago that describes the issue from the point of view of someone who works in the industry. Still surprisingly relevant 3 years later. I should have written a book about it when I had the chance

I would suggest that you don't understand the effect this is going to have on ISP's. They will be facing higher costs and they'll have to recoup that investment somehow.

@Vlad: As usual the American press has treated the situation in the Netherlands as a sort of utopia. On the short term it won't make much of a difference. Investments in bandwidth were ongoing because the "pie" is still growing. Some politicians are saying that net neutrality has something to do with that, but this is unconditional nonsense. For example, mobile internet bandwidth demands already outstrips the tempo at which mobile operators can invest in infrastructure, so for the time being it's a zero sum game between government and telcos. Sherri may be right that costs will go down but this will only continue on the short term while planned investments are still ongoing and the total size of the "pie" is still growing (the number of subscribers is increasing).

The effect it will have on the mid-term however is unclear. KPN who is both a telco, delivering infrastructure, and an ISP said that they would look into charging internet users an additional fee for VOIP services like Skype. Their core business is still fixed switched telephony and revenues are dropping steadily as VOIP becomes more popular and bandwidth allows for stable good quality connections. Vodafone, a mobile operator had, IIRC blocked the use of VOIP all together because it conflicted with their core business, which is cellular telephony. What net neutrality in the Netherlands intended to do it uncouple the conflict of interest between the telco service and the role of ISP. KPN and Vodafone see VOIP as a bigger threat to their business than growing demand for streaming video, although the latter will eventually start to hurt them as the market matures.

The effect in the Netherlands in the long term will probably mean that operators offering data services and operators offering telephony services will find themselves at odds with their own business model. What's good for the Vodafone "machine to machine" unit , for example (encouraging the use of VOIP) is diametrically opposed to the interests of their cellular business (discouraging the use of VOIP). It will certainly lead to telcos changing their pricing model to a "fixed price" model in order to compete with VOIP (at the moment pricing is per minute) but more importantly It may lead to companies wanting--or needing--to split up so they can compete with themselves more freely. Net neutrality will increase this pressure to split up because different business units will no longer be able to use traffic shaping or differentiation as part of the overall model to optimize what is good for the company as a whole.... Possibly to the detriment of their customers.

In the extreme long term we may see traditional switched fixed wire telephony disappear all together. In the Netherlands this is already happening. KPN is losing ground on their fixed wire business at an astonishing rate. Companies like UPC have already started offering VOIP service in combination with broad band internet as their primary telephony offering. For the cable companies net neutrality is mixed blessing because on the one hand KPN will not be able to hinder the further development of VOIP but cable companies will end up with new challenges with managing the local loop because the bandwidth throttling they rely on to avoid service degradation could be construed as a crime. For telcos it will mean lower revenues. For ISP's it will mean higher costs. For the telco/ISP's like KPN, it will mean both. For customers it will mean higher overall costs as the market matures.

All in all, what I see is that net neutrality is forcing the market down a path that I believe they would have had to take organically anyway.... Is forcing the issue while the market is still developing is going to improve anything for end users? There isn't any apparent monopoly or cartel forming going on here that needed a hammer blow..... so why? why now?

I don't see a need other than to give content providers a free lunch.

R..

 

[ljpm]

In the sense that it doesn't have to with who owns the copyright, you are obviously correct. The issue to which I was referring has to do with copyright infringement.

For example, in the Netherlands there was an ISP that was held legally responsible for delivering data from a torrent site (I believe it was Pirate Bay). The Dutch legislators who were dealing with the aftermath of this in the context of Net Neutrality have been very clear that by defining the ISP's as a utility it provides a legal mechanism to isolate them from these kinds of law suits. The current approach is (a) go after the content providers if you can and (b) go after end users if the content provider is hiding in a foreign safe haven like Russia.

So yes, it absolutely has to do with copyright.

R..

Ok, I get that part, but why would ISP's want the elimination of net neutrality if it opens the door to litigation.

 

[ljpm]

Except when....?

R..

Missed your point entirely on this one. ??