OT: net neutrality vote today.

Submitted by Dayday on December 14th, 2017 at 7:17 AM
I haven't seen this thread anywhere; so my apologies if this has already been discussed. I hear a lot of people freaking out about today's vote and to be honest I haven't read enough to fully understand the ramifications or benefits. Those who really knew what's going on; I would like to know you think about it? Is it good? Is it bad? Should we celebrate or should we run for the hills?

Comments

Zarniwoop

December 14th, 2017 at 4:30 PM ^

Net Neutrality wouldn't be so desperately important if internet providers weren't monopolies in every consumer area of the country.

This does nothing for consumers and everything for ISPs that have monopolies wherever they happen to service.

dieseljr32

December 14th, 2017 at 7:19 AM ^

Run for the hills and don't look back. Ever since November 2016 alot of people feel like anything is possible including losing net neutrality.

that's as political as I will get on here. someone will post something on here much more detailed. But, those are my thoughts.

MGoGrendel

December 14th, 2017 at 8:40 AM ^

Businesses that want to have guaranteed QoS and CoS for their time sensitive applications pay extra for it.  That benefit should not be handed out to everyone (it's not a "right").  If it was, everyone's rates would go up.

Also, the carrier networks have improved dramatically over the last decade.  Where there were limited 10 Gbps backbones, we now have multiple 100 Gbps second backbones.

It's the equivalent of taking Route 66 from Illinois to California back in the day verses taking the Interstate roads today.  Plus, we don't have "road neutrality" - trucks aren't allowed in the left lanes in some parts of the country and we pay extra (tolls) to get into fast lanes.

The Mad Hatter

December 14th, 2017 at 8:46 AM ^

should be regulated like the utility companies.

No offense, but internet service in this country sucks ass compared to other first world countries.  It's way slower and more expensive here than anywhere else.

Also, a lot of the infrastructure was government funded (fiber optic cables, etc).

FauxMo

December 14th, 2017 at 9:02 AM ^

Your last point is huge. If the government (i.e. the people) pays to build the infrastructure as a public good, then it should get to regulate the market as a public good. Just like that billion dollars we spent on fiber optic cables between NYC and Chicago a few years ago; a few billion dollars so high-speed traders can make trades fractions of a second faster. Those same traders will lose their minds if the government every tries to regulate their industry, but were happy to take the money to pad their own pockets... 

MGoGrendel

December 14th, 2017 at 9:19 AM ^

Here is the list: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-countries-with-the-fastest-internet-speeds

We are #10 behind small EU countries, Hong Kong, and South Korea. Our average speed is 18.7 Mbps, a 22% year over year increase.  #2 is at 23.5 Mbps and #1 is 28.6 Mbps.  We are not that far behind

Look at the size of these countries in the list - most are close to the size of Michigan.  It's less costly to build out a network there compared to running fiber from NY to Miami to Chicago to Seattle to Dallas to LA. 

The Mad Hatter

December 14th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^

Using government resources I might add.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect we should be a leader in providing internet service.

It's almost impossible to make an apples to apples comparison for our internet service, as no other country has a similar size, population, and GDP. 

Also, most of the infrastructure is there already.  We have fiber optic cables running all over the country (and under the ocean).  The only challenge is connecting residential customers to those lines (the last mile or two of the system).

garde

December 14th, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^

I moved to Italy in 2001. I signed up for a new internet provider over there called FastWeb. IN 2001, I HAD FIBER OPTIC SERVICE that was quicker than anything I have had since then in the USA (and I currently have FIOS). I will never forget downloading my first full album on iTunes and it was done in mere seconds. Moreover, back then mobile hotspots were EVERYWHERE. You could basically walk into any pub, restaraunt, cafe, etc and get internet service. Granted, I was living in Milan at the time and I am sure the service south of Rome was probably pathetic, however when I moved back three years later to NYC, I just laughed at how slow my service was. 

I was also stunned when I moved there how everyone I knew in Europe was texting a few years ahead of the US. Primarily because monthly plans are not favorable over there, but you buy minutes instead. So texting was cheaper than calling. Again, when I moved back here 3 years later, NY'ers were just starting to text.

bluebyyou

December 14th, 2017 at 10:59 AM ^

Is the backbone really the subject of taxpayer money?  I ask this because I remember around the year 2000 when DC streets (as was the case in many cities) were constantly being ripped up by numerous private companies laying fiber, some of which is still unused.  When my neighborhoods over the years were upgraded to fiber and before that, cable, this was done by private corporations.  

The development of today's Internet was a decades long in development.  I was unaware our modern fiber backbones were originally done by our governemnt.

If I am wrong, please provide a link to our government's current spending on our internet backbone beyond military and specific government requirements.

 

Anchew

December 14th, 2017 at 11:55 AM ^

i have a question for ya. how many utility companies can you choose service from? i only have one gas and one electric company that service me. with that being said, that's why the government regulates the utilities as to avoid monopolies. we have several options to choose from to get our internet, so why should it be regulated? doesnt competition drive self regulation? on the other hand, if these billion dollar companies take subsidies, shouldn't we have a say or at least some sort of discounted rate?

wile_e8

December 14th, 2017 at 12:01 PM ^

The problem here is with your assumption that we have several options to choose from to get our internet - most homes have two or fewer options. The huge infratstructure costs for multiple networks and the diminishing returns for each additional network make it difficult to get enough competitors for a thriving market that self regulates. Since letting the market regulate itself isn't an option, it's important for the FCC to step in and make sure the existing ISPs operate fairly. 

MichiganTeacher

December 14th, 2017 at 12:15 PM ^

Hatter, I normally appreciate your posts, but I disagree strongly with this one. I'm wondering if it's a troll or serious. But I'll bite...

Your blanket statement about the internet being slower and more expensive here than anywhere else is just silly. 

Your argument that because the government funded the infrastructure, it can dictate rules for the infrastructure doesn't hold up. The government funds the food for almost 50% of the kids in my school. Does that mean the government can dictate to the kids what they can do with the calories from that food? 

The Mad Hatter

December 14th, 2017 at 12:25 PM ^

think about how you feel about government.  Pulse going up?  Face getting a little flushed?

 

That's exactly how I feel about major corporations.

I could have been more clear with my opinion and examples.

The internet has become a necessity in our daily lives, almost on par with water, gas, and electrical services.   Now where I live the water is safe to drink (so not Flint), the electricity is reliable and affordable, and I never even think about the gas service because it is so good and inexpensive.

Meanwhile, I can choose from 3 ISP's.  All of them offer essentially the same product for the same price (seriously, the differences are insignificant after the promotional rate periods expire).

I'd prefer to have one ISP that offers faster service at a lower price.  Other counties can do it, we should be able to as well.

TIMMMAAY

December 15th, 2017 at 9:27 AM ^

You're a stain on the profession, is what you are. Every time you talk about something controversial, you show your extreme ignorance of how things actually work. If you were teaching my kid, we would have words. 

Let's take your last comment as an example; 

We do look at things differently. You'd 'prefer' to have one ISP that offers faster service at a lower price. Ok - what gives you the right to enforce that preference by law on other people?

Nothing, Hatter. Nothing gives you that right.

This right here is case in point. You say that he'd "prefer" that we have one ISP that's faster and cheaper. What you fail to understand, and keep digging deeper in that failing of understanding, is that most people already have just one ISP to "choose" from. And we already pay more for that privilege than most of the developed world, and pay more for the pleasure. By gutting NN laws, we just handed those handful of giants a license to charge more, slow it down further, and generally control the content that we can receive.

"Competition" will not make it work, as people like you love to say. Because there is no competition. So, please enlighten me as to exactly how this is a good thing. Please. I'm waiting with bated breath. 

Z_Wolverista

December 15th, 2017 at 12:55 AM ^

If the government (aka the public) funds the food for 50% of the kids in your example, it can (& prolly should) have a say in what that food is. As in, high protein, low sugar, & "ketchup" doesn't count as fruit & veggies, etc....

Congressional oversight of ISP's or 'dictating' rules for the *infrastructure* of the internet is distinct from guvmint declaring "you can't write about teaching controversies on your blog" or "no sports comments on a politics site!". Which no one is really debating.

Now, by providing crappy nutrition, your hypothetical government may all but guarantee the kids won't be able to do much with their calories...

... *that* would be analogies to concerns about choking off robust, free-flowing online discussion.

Kinda.

 

reshp1

December 14th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^

What if I told you multi-ton vehicles hurdling down a physical road has almost no similarities to 1s and 0s in a wire/fiber optic?

Trucks are charged because they tear up the roads more and they aren't allowed into the left lane because they're slow. A byte is a byte is a byte.

It's more like charging a car more because it pulled out of a Walmart parking lot instead of a Target one.

Aspyr

December 14th, 2017 at 10:08 AM ^

Bad for consumers - bad for innovation - bad for competition - anyone here commenting that this is somehow good either profits from it ( works for a telecom ) or is being duped by wherever they get their news. The later will find out soon enough if NN is repealed.

Um1994

December 14th, 2017 at 6:38 PM ^

CNN and MSNBC, I guess..or Fox?  Journalism is dead and all that exists is commentators living in echo chambers, regardless of ones political leanings.  Everyone watchs what they agree with and parrots the arguments they hear.  Just look at these comments.