Net neutrality war begins...

[Hards Alumni]

Amazon Prime will be the next one.  It will be interesting to see what these deals end up like.

[reinko]

They have to.

No way will a business eat the costs and not pass it on, esp. NetFlix.

No one is a viable challenger. RedBox? Please. I tried their service to see if it was worth it and it was a waste: the new releases in the machine weren't available in the stream queue. What's worse is their catalog consists mostly of B movies and old 50s westerns as well as early B&W (some silent) movies.

I look forward to companies that can stream their content on their own via the net based on a subscription...and accessible in a hub like Apple TV presents.

I know you are talking their stream services, but I actually quite like Rebox machines.  Making reservations is easy, machines either at my subway stop or at a grocery store.  $1.50 a night for a Blu-Ray.

[ChicosBailBonds]

They have to.

No way will a business eat the costs and not pass it on, esp. NetFlix.

No one is a viable challenger. RedBox? Please. I tried their service to see if it was worth it and it was a waste: the new releases in the machine weren't available in the stream queue. What's worse is their catalog consists mostly of B movies and old 50s westerns as well as early B&W (some silent) movies.

I look forward to companies that can stream their content on their own via the net based on a subscription...and accessible in a hub like Apple TV presents.

No need to look forward, they can do it today.  There is a huge reason they don't.  $$$$$$$$$

They would sacrifice massive amounts of money

[jesmu84]

Chicos, there is absolutely no way you can continue to defend these buffoons...

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2014/022414-verizon-heavy-web-users-should-279060.html



If you can get past this guy's schtick, he makes good points:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb0ylZHHY08&list=UUNovoA9w0KnxyDP5bGrOYzg&feature=c4-overview

Here's a bit more in-depth info on ISPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37nfG8m0XzQ

[jesmu84]

Here's more on the money that our government gave away to help build infrastructure. And, shocker, the private corporations did next to nothing with it.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

[rocket surgeon]

Agree 100%. People being forced to subsidize content that they don't want and never watch violates the very economic principles that set this country apart and made her the envy of the rest of the world. Corporate welfare and subsidies are the most heinous of all - they provide a legitimacy to anyone with their hand out, whether truly needy or not.

sounds a lot like obama's unaffordable care act.  umm, i don't think i will be needing any of that birth control or transgender surgery and homone therapy, but they expect me and others to pay for it 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here's more on the money that our government gave away to help build infrastructure. And, shocker, the private corporations did next to nothing with it.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

The gov't in bed with business and powerful interest groups?  Shocking

[ChicosBailBonds]

Inevitable and the right decision in my view.  Why should Netflix or others get a free ride on pipes they didn't build or own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0


Yes, this means prices for customers are going up

[Hards Alumni]

Inevitable and the right decision in my view.  Why should Netflix or others get a free ride on pipes they didn't build or own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0


Yes, this means prices for customers are going up

So the monopoly got what it wanted.  This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court.  Mark it down.  Enormous slippery slope.

This the most important quote from the article:

"The proposed rules would also require Internet service providers to disclose whether in assigning faster lanes, they have favored their affiliated companies that provide content. That could have significant implications for Comcast, the nation’s largest provider of high-speed Internet service, because it owns NBCUniversal."

We already have which news we get decided for us on television, so an open and free internet is essential.

[Spotcheck Billy]

So how much will Amazon have to pay to various ISPs for streaming HBO shows now?

[Benny B]

So Daffy (the one-legged) Duck announces today that he's all for net neutrality, and evidently, this has been one of the worst kept secrets on the beltway since all of the providers and Elmer Fudd ("it's wike Daffycare fo' duh internet, huh huh huh huh huh") had their press releases out in response within minutes.

Here's what I don't get.... The FCC issues licenses and other permits for radio and TV stations, i.e. you can't just start your own OTA TV station without passing through the FCC, and you probably can't air porn 24 hours a day if you do.  But the FCC has dominion over all interstate wire, cable, and OTA communication, right?  Why can't the FCC simply start requiring licenses for all broadband communications providers and issue the licenses on the condition of net neutrality?

In other words, if you're Verizon or Comcast, etc., how do you really expect to get around an executive order issued by the guy who appoints the people who run the agency to whom you subordinate your livelihood.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wheeler is put in a very tough spot because the Commission has been working on this for the last year and now bambi comes in at the last moment.  He (Wheeler) also knows that if he goes along with bambi, more than likely the whole thing is thrown out in court based on the rulings to date and precedents set the last 15 years.  The idea of the internet as a public utility is bad on so many levels.

This is a debate that 90% of Americans have no idea what it really means.  They hear things like it will make my Netflix movies come to me faster, if it was only so simple.

Fun times ahead

[jesmu84]

Maybe, I don't know, we should do things like put former Big Cable lobbyists into positions like running the FCC. I'm sure there's no possibility of that going poorly for the public.

[brandx]

So Daffy (the one-legged) Duck announces today that he's all for net neutrality, and evidently, this has been one of the worst kept secrets on the beltway since all of the providers and Elmer Fudd ("it's wike Daffycare fo' duh internet, huh huh huh huh huh") had their press releases out in response within minutes.

Here's what I don't get.... The FCC issues licenses and other permits for radio and TV stations, i.e. you can't just start your own OTA TV station without passing through the FCC, and you probably can't air porn 24 hours a day if you do.  But the FCC has dominion over all interstate wire, cable, and OTA communication, right?  Why can't the FCC simply start requiring licenses for all broadband communications providers and issue the licenses on the condition of net neutrality?

In other words, if you're Verizon or Comcast, etc., how do you really expect to get around an executive order issued by the guy who appoints the people who run the agency to whom you subordinate your livelihood.

Aww... you and your little buddy are sooooooo cute with your nicknames. Extremely clever....

[brandx]

And we KNOW what the telecoms will do if they get what they want. That fact is not a hypothetical.

Example #1 (none other needed): Last year Comcast DEMANDED that Netflix pay up or they would slow things down for all Netflix users. Comcast then carried out that threat blackmailing Netflix into paying dearly.

Net Neutrality is about only one thing. Big corporations attempts to control the flow of information. It's just one more attempt to control the airwaves.

"Daffy", as some half-wit on this board cleverly referred to, called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. That is it.

[brandx]

Wheeler is put in a very tough spot because the Commission has been working on this for the last year and now bambi comes in at the last moment.  He (Wheeler) also knows that if he goes along with bambi, more than likely the whole thing is thrown out in court based on the rulings to date and precedents set the last 15 years.  The idea of the internet as a public utility is bad on so many levels.

This is a debate that 90% of Americans have no idea what it really means.  They hear things like it will make my Netflix movies come to me faster, if it was only so simple.

Fun times ahead

It's amazing how often you refer to yourself as smarter than most Americans. Many here have a different idea.

[jesmu84]

And we KNOW what the telecoms will do if they get what they want. That fact is not a hypothetical.

Example #1 (none other needed): Last year Comcast DEMANDED that Netflix pay up or they would slow things down for all Netflix users. Comcast then carried out that threat blackmailing Netflix into paying dearly.

Net Neutrality is about only one thing. Big corporations attempts to control the flow of information. It's just one more attempt to control the airwaves.

"Daffy", as some half-wit on this board cleverly referred to, called for prohibiting ISPs from blocking or deliberately slowing any legal content. That is it.

Can you guess what event took place during January 2014?

[77ncaachamps]

^^^ But what explains Google Fiber, Cablevision, and Cox?


I think data compression may be an answer to this, no?
If more info can be compressed into even smaller packets, streaming should have little effects on its speed (notwithstanding demand), no?

[mu03eng]

Honestly, given what commerce and general life enablement occurs on the internet, I'd like someone to tell me how the internet shouldn't be treated like the interstate highway system or the ISPs regulated like utilities?

The internet has become a critical and vital component of life, one that the masses can't provide for themselves.  This is a classic example of where the government should step in and provide regulation and oversight.  The ISPs are defacto monopolies who depended on goverment funding (right of ways, loans, grants, etc) to create their pipes which they now want to use their ownership of to extort funds.  Yes they invested in the pipes as well, they are allowed to profit from their investment but not by extorting users and companies.

Ultimately, it's not about Netflix getting more expensive, they are established and can absorb it.  It's about the next disruptive technology not being able to get off the ground because they can't afford the same extortion fees that the established players can.

Additionally, it should be no surprise that the vast majority of ISPs are also content delivery companies.  Want to keep the paradigm from shifting?  Make the technologies forcing the change artificially expensive in comparison.

[jesmu84]

Honestly, given what commerce and general life enablement occurs on the internet, I'd like someone to tell me how the internet shouldn't be treated like the interstate highway system or the ISPs regulated like utilities?

The internet has become a critical and vital component of life, one that the masses can't provide for themselves.  This is a classic example of where the government should step in and provide regulation and oversight.  The ISPs are defacto monopolies who depended on goverment funding (right of ways, loans, grants, etc) to create their pipes which they now want to use their ownership of to extort funds.  Yes they invested in the pipes as well, they are allowed to profit from their investment but not by extorting users and companies.

Ultimately, it's not about Netflix getting more expensive, they are established and can absorb it.  It's about the next disruptive technology not being able to get off the ground because they can't afford the same extortion fees that the established players can.

Additionally, it should be no surprise that the vast majority of ISPs are also content delivery companies.  Want to keep the paradigm from shifting?  Make the technologies forcing the change artificially expensive in comparison.

No way there can be a conflict of interest there. Or any sort of monopoly control.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This article talks about how difficult Bambi made things yesterday for Wheeler.

Many lawsuits will be coming and likely will prevail.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-chair-under-bus-obama-003147315.html?.tsrc=applewf

[Henry Sugar]

I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.

Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.

This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".

Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.

[mu03eng]

This article talks about how difficult Bambi made things yesterday for Wheeler.

Many lawsuits will be coming and likely will prevail.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fcc-chair-under-bus-obama-003147315.html?.tsrc=applewf

For the record Obama made things difficult for himself when he kowtowed to lobbyists interests by appointing Wheeler in the first place.  Wheeler was one of the chief lobbyists for the ISP side of things prior to becoming a fundraiser for Obama that likely landed him the job in the first place.

What lawsuits are going to be filed?  How could you possibly know if they will prevail?  If the ISPs want to take this to court that's great, but they might stir the monster that is popular opinion which could in turn wake the Congress' ability to assess internet providers as monopolies and establish law of the land that treats them as utilities.

[mu03eng]

I've worked in the Telecom industry for 15 years (and have other unique experiences to provide insight). I could write several long posts detailing both sides of net neutrality.

Here's the (not-so) concise version:
1. Data traffic is growing exponentially, and video comprises most of that growth.
2. Building out networks to support exponential data growth is expensive.
3. Video streaming/communications providers largely are forcing the increased network growth but do not pay for the costs of building out the networks. In other words, they are free-riding on the network infrastructure.
4. There should be some mechanism to recover these costs and provide better quality of service via charging. This can benefit consumers and already happens in many networks.
5. However, once you provide preferential treatment of some websites over others, a system of haves and have-nots is created by default. This can discourage innovation.
6. Companies pushing hardest for net neutrality are already established companies that free-ride on network infrastructure, which will also discourage innovation.
7. Government regulation and rate-setting is inefficient but the primary way to do net neutrality.
8. Without government involvement, huge geographic portions of the country will be left behind on broadband speed. The cost/benefit of providing high-speed broadband in Westby, WI isn't as strong as in Milwaukee.
9. It's easy to side with the net neutrality people, such as google and netflix, and it's easy to side against Comcast and Time Warner. Both positions are wrong.

This is a messy, gray issue where an inefficient government has to play a role and neither the service providers nor the content providers have particularly clean hands. It is too simplistic to view this as, "keep the internet free".

Unfortunately, this issue and thread are, and will further, devolve into your typical black-white, left-right politics bullsh*t. Speaking of which, I'd appreciate it if people did not quote Chicos.

I agree with all of this, which is why I think it is all very analogous to the interstate highway system.  I really think at some point the pipes should be taken over by the state and federal goverments.  In the meantime, I'm all for the pipe providers generating an income to profit off the risk of creating the pipes....as long as the profit is generated equal from all customers.

What'll be interesting is if data compression becomes the next disruptive technology to render some of this discussion obsolete.

[Henry Sugar]

I agree with all of this, which is why I think it is all very analogous to the interstate highway system. I really think at some point the pipes should be taken over by the state and federal goverments. In the meantime, I'm all for the pipe providers generating an income to profit off the risk of creating the pipes....as long as the profit is generated equal from all customers.

What'll be interesting is if data compression becomes the next disruptive technology to render some of this discussion obsolete.

Nationalization of the transport networks, such as a publicly traded company like CenturyLink? That is... unlikely.

Data compression is an ongoing effort that works with the constraints of physics. I'm not aware of any significant techniques under development that would be considered disruptive. The primary effort these days is caching nodes in transport networks to reduce the core impact.

What is also being done is trying to increase the capacity in the last mile of high speed bandwidth delivery (ie - to your house). There are some efforts to roll out Gigabit Ethernet service to consumers, but a good rule of thumb is $1000 per customer just to lay fiber. That's not equipment or operations costs or salaries. Repeat times 300 million Americans and you get a feel for the scope and stakes of supporting increased data growth.