ot: net neutrality

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by mistermo

No one wants restricted content. On that, we agree. Surely you see that controlling the speed at which we access that content will determine which content we'll see and determine the winners/losers. In effect, this becomes content control.

Exactly. Don't think the ISP's won't throttle down the speeds of individual sites. And I expect individual ISP's will require websites to pay to pass through their servers.

The internet should be viewed as a UTILITY such as electrical service, water, etc., and regulated and protected so that ALL may have equal access to ALL content.

[Gsinill]

Just the next step of selling out the people to big corporations.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/23/1...w-act-fcc-vote

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

Many countries do not have net neutrality, including Canada.

Uh, yes we do.

The Canadian commitment to net neutrality has been similarly endorsed at the regulatory level. The foundation of Canadian policy lies in several CRTC decisions that restrict practices such as managing internet traffic to limit speeds for some applications or creating pricing plans that "zero rate" certain content that does not count as part of monthly data-consumption caps. Moreover, Canadian law features clear safeguards against unjust discrimination, undue preferences or controlling the content of communications.

While the change in U.S. administration has led to a dramatic shift in net-neutrality policy, the same will not occur in Canada. New CRTC chair Ian Scott told an industry conference earlier this month that "as companies continue to innovate in their offerings to Canadians, the CRTC will continue to ensure that Canada's internet neutrality provisions are respected … the owners and operators of the country's communications may not discriminate against content based on its origin or destination."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle37053783/

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Rada

Those political forces are bing driven by the half billion dollars ISP's have spent.

And who knows how many billions spent by PACs. It goes both ways.

If I had spent billions on developing an infrastructure I'd protect it, too. That is not endorsing abuse of said infrastructure.

[eddief]

thanks.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by 1centaur

I think it is worth considering what Republicans are trying to do here. I don't think it's about being bribed by Comcast to give them the right to throttle the little guy or kill political speech. They actually have a principled reason for doing what they are doing. Both sides in this argument have valid concerns and points.

Net neutrality means data hogs, like Netflix, are subsidized by the little guys, because the ISPs can't charge Netflix more for taking up 40% of bandwidth on a given night and demanding fast speeds to do so. Net neutrality is tied up with government controlling the network management and profitability of private businesses. It's about seizing private property (calling ISPs common carriers so they can be regulated like phone companies, for example). ISPs spent billions to develop networks and naturally do not want their investment seized by politicians who have, unsurprisingly, political motivations.

Stopping states from having local privacy restrictions is interstate commerce 101. We can't have roadblocks at the state level or the system will be gummed up.

These topics are worthy of debate: now that the Internet has become crucial to modern life, SHOULD the private rights of the ISPs be hijacked by government? If the answer is yes, then how much should tax payers contribute to building out the Internet from here? We can't expect private companies to build what they would have if the fruits of their labor are extracted from them by law.

Also, will ISPs choose to throttle little people or will they just charge more to data hogs? How one frames the argument depends on perspective.

Also, will ISPs use their freedom to restrain free speech other than coincidentally by allowing Netflix to pay more for bandwidth? Seems incredibly dumb to do so, given how easy it will be to check and publicize and therefore politicize. They say they won't; those of a political bent say they might, but do they believe it or do they say it because they just like the idea of same speeds for everyone and who cares who's paying too much?

I'm not for price setting by government for private businesses. That tends to distort outcomes in not good ways. But, realistically, if freedom to manage their networks leads to ISPs doing something heinous to free speech I will be happy to see a political response.

Many countries do not have net neutrality, including Canada.

You said it much better than I could have. We are on the same page.

A "free and open" internet is a pipe dream today. Somebody is paying for it, and some pay more than others.

An adjunct argument to this is, what should be the role of government in, let's just call it telecommunications? Almost all traffic is digital now, wired and wireless, and encompasses voice, audio and video content, and data. Should the FCC be in charge of all this? Should the FTC? Should anyone?

As ISP's move heavily into content, the risk of abuse goes up. Should ISP's be allowed to do this? When tech companies can afford to run at a loss for years, some decades, how is that competitive? How many Amazons does this world really need?

Happy Thanksgiving everybody. I hope you all can get outside to ride this weekend. I'm planning on it.

[dave thompson]

My biggest concern is that if the ‘big guys’ are allowed to effectively control the ‘speed’ of the ‘little guys’ it will be a de facto content control and we will only be able to see what the big guys “think” we want to see. That is not very far removed from forcing us to see what they want us to see.

I’m a very mellow, moderately conservative open minded person but I’m dead set against anything that remotely resembles what the FCC is proposing. The current administration seems to be pushing their ‘My way or the highway’ agenda under the guise of less government regulations. Too few people control too much of what we do and it will be getting worse with time.

[abguff]

Originally Posted by eddief

the Alabama election and the tax bill. will anyone notice?

these days that depends on if media covers Twitter or what is actually happening.

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

Exactly. Don't think the ISP's won't throttle down the speeds of individual sites. And I expect individual ISP's will require websites to pay to pass through their servers.

The internet should be viewed as a UTILITY such as electrical service, water, etc., and regulated and protected so that ALL may have equal access to ALL content.

I would have no general problem with the US internet being regulated like a utility, as long as there is a free market behind it, aka the electric company ISO's. If you're Netflix and want to stream your popular show at a peak time, you pay more.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

You said it much better than I could have. We are on the same page.

A "free and open" internet is a pipe dream today. Somebody is paying for it, and some pay more than others.

An adjunct argument to this is, what should be the role of government in, let's just call it telecommunications? Almost all traffic is digital now, wired and wireless, and encompasses voice, audio and video content, and data. Should the FCC be in charge of all this? Should the FTC? Should anyone?

As ISP's move heavily into content, the risk of abuse goes up. Should ISP's be allowed to do this? When tech companies can afford to run at a loss for years, some decades, how is that competitive? How many Amazons does this world really need?

Happy Thanksgiving everybody. I hope you all can get outside to ride this weekend. I'm planning on it.

I'd posit that as telecommunications is rapidly becoming as necessary as electricity and water, it should be regulated by government to keep access fair and equal. Yes, I know that one can live without internet. In the future the lack of it will be a sharp dividing line between those who move forward with the changing world and those who don't (can't).

[zap]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Uh, yes we do.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN19J27N

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by zap

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN19J27N

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

The case stems from claims by Equustek Solutions Inc, a small technology company in British Columbia that manufactures network devices, that distributor Datalink Technologies Gateways relabeled one of its products and sold it as its own online and acquired trade secrets to design and manufacture a competing product.

In 2012, Equustek asked Google to remove Datalink search results until the case against the company was resolved. While Google removed over 300 specific web pages associated with Datalink, it did so only on the Canadian version of its search engine.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia subsequently ordered Google to stop displaying search results in any country for any part of Datalink’s websites.

It's also toothless and a bit bizarre. How can a court in BC prevent a multinational company from performing its activities worldwide? I don't know how this will play out, but I can't imagine that Google is complying worldwide on this.

Okay, I just did a search for Datalink Technologies Gateways and got 397,000 hits. The top hits were to the company's website. Shrug.

[zap]

Originally Posted by rousseau

That's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It's also toothless and a bit bizarre. How can a court in BC prevent a multinational company from performing its activities worldwide?

Well, that's interesting.

Google has operations in Canada so BC and Canada's Supreme Court can make it difficult for Google. Eu has had success against Googles worldwide activities.

[ultraman6970]

ISPs are the ones that will have problems with this neutrality thing, IMO for us shouldnt be a problem, actually is better because now big ISPs (from what I understand) wont be able to f... your connection just because of interests, like for example your use of netflix... or just supress content...

[rnhood]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

There's a big difference between allowing classes of traffic at different speeds, and censoring or blocking content. Internet traffic has been prioritized since the beginning. It's no threat to anyone. There's plenty of competition in the long haul space so there's no imminent threat of a monopoly.

However, if there is collusion amongst companies to block content, for whatever reason, that's not good. That said, social media platforms are doing this today, and I don't see 20 million people writing their congressperson about that.

The other thing to consider is that the Internet is worldwide. We can make all the laws we want, but the rest of the world can ignore them.

Good post, and I agree 100%. Mostly it's much to do about nothing, and no one is going to lose their internet connection. In fact competition will increase if this goes through.