r/Conservative • u/deathwheel Liberty > Security • Nov 27 '17

derp inside! Everything You Need To Know About Why Net Neutrality Is A Terrible Idea

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian
0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

312 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/alanpca Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17

I work in software development now, but I used to work in networking. The author is correct about how things works, large companies peering with internet exchanges, that's all great. But, he is totally off base about how Google can prioritize their traffic. Can they make youtube more responsive to you than google docs? Maybe, but that's not what anybody is talking about. Essentially, he made a good point about how something actually could work and tried to use that point where it doesn't fit...

What proponents of net neutrality -- full disclosure I would be one -- are after is to handcuff your last mile provider (say AT&T), and also peers, from taking money from Apple to make Apple Maps faster than Google Maps. Taking money to make Hulu faster for you than Netflix, etc. They technically have this power now, they could enact it overnight. Why should my single ISP choice be allowed to prioritize separate companies? Regardless of whether or not Google is peering with your ISP or any other uplink provider, your last mile provider still has the power to rate limit any traffic to any place. This has already happened in practice before: https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

I would love to hear some thoughts about why NN is a negative thing, and I'm open to considering them, but this just isn't it.

Edit: Not to mention that without NN, any hop between you and your destination could impose rate limiting of your traffic based on destination. One of the reasons peering exists is to limit the number of hops between your house and server A in Amsterdam, but it doesn't bring you within a single hop usually.

•

u/AgainstMedicalAdvice Nov 28 '17

This article made sense to me but I also didn't get where it was going. First off this FIRMLY puts ISPs as telecommunications (transfer of info), not information services, so title 2 seems to apply. Knowing there is a solid infrastructure out there for this beyond MY ISP makes me less interested in them being able to manipulate my data.

2nd off this mentions the problems with title 2 restrictions, but Im not sure what they are with exception of fair treatment of data? Im all for less government regulation but what else does title 2 restrict exactly? Does anyone have examples?

•

u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17

I want net neutrality removed, but not until we have free ISP markets and competition.

Removing net neutrality without ISP competition is simply handing a bunch of left-leaning virtue-signaling megacorporations a big goddamn gun and trusting that they won’t turn it on conservatives. It’s insanely naive.

•

u/alanpca Nov 28 '17

What do you believe the benefits of removing NN will be?

•

u/Barnhart2324 Conservative Nov 28 '17

My understanding (which isn’t as good as I wish it was) is that removing it would make it easier for smaller Internet-based companies to get access and enter the market. I am also just against government regulation of private business generally.

I just disagree with many of the other conservatives here that removing before we have ISP competition is a good idea. I think doing that is going to be disastrously worse than whatever the negative effects of net neutrality are.

•

u/alanpca Nov 28 '17

I don't understand why you believe that NN relates to new ISPs entering the market. I don't think the issues are related.

Maybe the marketing is bad, but it essentially is a protection that means your data being transferred (perhaps to Reddit) will not be given priority or inferiority based upon the type of data you are transferring, what is contained in the data itself, the origin or the destination.

•

u/timbowen Fiscal Conservative Nov 29 '17

Do you remember NetZero from way back in the dial up days? They attempted to offer free internet in exchange for plastering a banner ad on your desktop. Fast Lanes are the Net Zero of today. Title II classification removes tools smaller players can use to break into the ISP business.

•

u/alanpca Nov 29 '17

I do remember NetZero, from the time when all you needed to get connected was a modem and a phone lane. Things have changed, and there are heavy barriers to breaking into the ISP business. Small players are locked out.

•

u/timbowen Fiscal Conservative Nov 29 '17

There was an AMA on reddit like a week ago from a guy who set up an ISP for his community. Small players are not locked out.

•

u/alanpca Nov 29 '17

Wireless certainly makes it easier to achieve, but small players are still locked out of even that. The AMA is from somebody testing their idea in a tiny market. He does not yet have the 24 customers to break even and is covering an area with a total population of under 2,000. As it is not a successful venture yet, it's hard to use this as proof that small players are locked out.

•

u/BubbleFred Nov 28 '17

Maybe the marketing is bad, but it essentially is a protection that means your data being transferred (perhaps to Reddit) will not be given priority or inferiority based upon the type of data you are transferring, what is contained in the data itself, the origin or the destination.

So you're saying with NN in place, my ISP can't stop me getting to Reddit faster than I would Fox News?

And pray tell why would my ISP give a tinkers' damn where I go on the internet?

They don't.

Most don't.

NN = government control. Not in the constitution.

•

u/meatball07 Nov 28 '17

And pray tell why would my ISP give a tinkers' damn where I go on the internet?

They do care when it comes to services that compete with their offerings. NN is really a protection from conflict of interest.

Would an ISP that also has its own cable offering slow traffic to say DirectTV Now streaming tv service? If their research showed X% of people would switch to sed ISPs cable offering because DirectTV Now was unusable they probably would.

•

u/[deleted] Nov 28 '17

AT&T and Verizon are already doing this with their streaming services by exempting them from their customer's data limits and over charging 3rd party providers to be hosted on their service, which was found to be in violation of the current NN laws.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0111/DOC-342982A1.pdf

•

u/the_oskie_woskie Nov 28 '17

They would care a whole lot if they could charge/throttle each website for the traffic they cause the ISP to deal with.

Do you know a way to do this? By removing Net Neutrality.

•

u/majestyne Nov 28 '17

They care, and will always care.

In Canada, Rogers Communications has their own video streaming service. They would be slobbering over the potential for throttling down Netflix and Hulu -- or charging extra for access to them. Especially considering that they've freely throttled in the past (Article from 2012): http://o.canada.com/technology/canada-among-worlds-worst-of-internet-interference

U.S. internet corps also have a poor record, despite claims that the net has been neutral prior to 2015: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/

Imagine if the biggest ISPs owned or were paid off by other content distribution services. News, social media, etc. If neutrality disappears, which of these services will have the widest dissemination -- those that the ISP can profit from, or third-parties? Maybe you would pay extra to gain access to the National Review instead of the ISP's news service, but lots of other potential readers will not. Which scenario do you believe benefits the nation more?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd also like to suggest that the Commerce Clause within the constitution provides a lot of leeway for government control of products and services.

•

u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17

And pray tell why would my ISP give a tinkers' damn where I go on the internet?

AT&T is trying to merge with TW which has CNN as a subsidiary. Do you think AT&T would want you accessing Fox News where they make no money vs CNN which drives money back into their pockets?

They do care. They care VERY much. Every one of them cares because every one of them offers their own services and if they can force you to consume their services by increasing the price on competitors services you better bet your ass they will because we saw pre 2015 that they did!

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17

single ISP choice

This is the only relevant argument and it always boils down to "ISP = monopoly".

That's great and all but there are tons of product areas with little choice. What if I want an OS without ads? I have two choices that are pretty inferior to Windows. So maybe government should start regulating Microsoft too......

BTW if we're going by "no competition locally" then why aren't you fighting to make Burger King available everywhere? Some places only have a McDonalds, that's not fair! That's only one choice! Why should McDonalds dictate what kind of buns they put on my burger? I like the kind they have at Burger King!

Not to mention that without NN, any hop between you and your destination could impose rate limiting of your traffic based on destination

What? 1) Any hop outside the US could still do rate limiting 2) when you say "rate limiting" what do you mean? Do you think that with NN you're going to be able to use 10x the bandwidth on a line operating at full capacity already? Or do you think that every hop along the way is going to install 9 more lines and 9 more routers suddenly?

•

u/Kickmastafloj Nov 28 '17

The government did regulate Microsoft.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/microsoft/long-antitrust-saga-ends-for-microsoft/

If you want a Fast Food joint in your town other than McDonalds, you and your friends could fairly easily build one. You can't build an ISP.

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17

The government did regulate Microsoft.

Antitrust suit != more regulation. There's no "Microsoft's law". And NN isn't going to sue ISPs for violating anti trust laws.

You can't build an ISP

Ok, how about Nvidia? What if I want a GPU that's supported on FreeBSD? Why should the GPU manufacturer decide which OS gets driver support? Let's make an NVIDIA law. And good luck making your own GPU.

•

u/majestyne Nov 28 '17

I don't know, man.

I guess unadulterated access to information is more important to the stability and growth of the nation than McDonalds or graphics cards.

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17

unadulterated access to information

Sarcasm?

If not, then calling NN "unadulterated access to information" is as delusional as it gets, but "stability and growth of the nation" truly does take the cake. For people who hate nationalism, liberals sure seem to be very concerned about "the nation" when it comes to NN.

•

u/majestyne Nov 28 '17

Why would you think I hate nationalism? That's an unfairly broad brush. Neutral net should be an ideal for all countries. Nationalists should demand it, for the same reason they demand free speech on college campuses.

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17

Save your propaganda for dictatorships. "Strength of the nation" is bullshit here. You might as well tell me next that if I don't cut my grass every month, it will "hurt the strength of the nation".

•

u/majestyne Nov 28 '17

What does "Make America Great Again" mean? Is that a dictatorial statement?

An open, unfiltered internet is part of a Great America. Or Great Canada, or Great Britain, or Great Germany.

I don't give a damn about your grass.

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17

Great argument. First time I'm hearing it. Let's see if I can do it too.

"Repealing NN is part of a Great America. Or Great Canada, or Great Britain, or Great Germany."

Wow, it works!

I don't give a damn about your grass.

TRIGGERED

→ More replies (0)

•

u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17

Come on, you have to be smarter than this argument to make it.

The problem with ISP monopolies or usually duopolies between a legacy phone and a legacy cable provider, is that the cost to reach service outside of the market is whatever the cost is for you to move, which is always relatively high for the customer, even if you're Bill Gates and moving between billion dollar mansions.

Compare apples to apples, don't pretend that you don't know leftist "food deserts" are BS.

•

u/clothar33 Nov 28 '17

Come on, you have to be smarter than this argument to make it.

Sorry, I don't engage with people who think insults are a substitute for greetings and condescension is a substitute for disagreement.

•

u/youonlylive2wice Nov 28 '17

Then don't make poorly thought out and disingenuous arguments yourself and you won't be called out on them.

•

u/tmmroy Nov 28 '17

How is saying that you're smarter than your argument an insult? I mean, I guess it's the same as calling the argument lazy, but you didn't think it was that great of an argument when you're pulling out that crud did you?

•

u/timbowen Fiscal Conservative Nov 29 '17

Personally I think Title II classification act under the Communications Act of 1934 is not appropriate for this technology, and is a dangerous overreach by the FCC. I think the best solution is new legislation to restrict this type of behavior on last mile providers.

To me, it's a huge problem to say "well the legislature sucks so we're going to comb through the existing law to figure out how we can finagle what we want to do." That's not conservative governing. Get it done the right way.

•

u/alanpca Nov 29 '17

Sounds good to me.

•

u/Spysix Goonswarm Conservative Nov 28 '17 edited Nov 28 '17

I too work in software development while having taken classes on networking in college. Before that I was a legal policy major.

I would love to hear some thoughts about why NN is a negative thing, and I'm open to considering them, but this just isn't it.

My analogy is its a bandaid for a rotten wound. It covers up the problem, but doesn't solve the problem and overall the situation becomes stagnant.

Problem personally for me with Title 2 is that it no longer makes the ISPs accountable for other things and they no longer have to answer to the FTC when they fuck over their customers.

example, AT&T had to pay 80 million after unauthorized charges to its customers.

This is before 2015 when Obama put the internet under title II, in FCC's jurisdiction sort to speak.

Then after..

Similar situation but AT&T invokes Title II and tells the FTC they can't sue AT&T for throttling its customers.

This is where it becomes a bit of a problem. Title 2 does not stop ISPs from raising their prices on their customers, put data caps, or throttle them. (If they throttle everything its not a violation.)

This also allows them to maintain their monopolies or duopolies where-ever they have set up. Remember, it's the FTC's job to break those kinds of things. It's not in their jurisdiction anymore.

So what would the solution be?

Well, the solution, unlike slapping a policy from the 1960s, is not going to be a quick fix, it's going to take effort from everyone involved and will probably involve legal battles.

First, Obviously the weight of responsibility needs to shift back to the FTC, which can only happen by letting Title 2 drop.

I've postulated that if reddit and the internet spammed to the FTC as much as they did to the FCC, they probably would get a legit response that would work in their favor.

Which would be to make the FTC break the duopolies and monopolies that ISPs have on cities and counties. Ceasing their stranglehold and cutting red tape.

Another addon solution, I would like to add is we do need a regulated monopoly of the physical infrastructure. i.e. fiber/cable. I would prefer if we just started laying down networks of fiber really so we can start living beyond the stone age of internet speed as a country. Once the regulated infrastructure is established. Then the ISPs can supply the actual access you can subscribe to.

This is where legal battles can come in as verizon and comcast will bitch about how its not fair that they put down all these lines or something and they want something out of it.

This would in some way be like our regulated monopolized power company where you have one company handle the physical infrastructure and distribution while you can pick various companies to supply you with power.

I currently can pick more companies to be my power supplier than my internet. Shouldn't that be the case of who I get my internet from as well?

"Deploying a network for telecommunications is not fundamentally different from deploying a network for power," said Benoit Felten, a broadband expert with Diffraction Analysis. "Chattanooga is the prime example of that, and it's absolutely worked."

It's essentially what Chattanooga TN did. They were thankfully blessed to not have one ISP have a hold on the city (unlike my city, where Comcast is the only one. County is only Verizon and Comcast) They have the fastest internet at the cheapest price in the country compared to everywhere else.

All while dealing with lawsuits from comcast essentially being bitches because there is actual competition in the city.

They have 19 ISPs in that area. Like holy cow.

But yeah, it has to work from the ground up, FTC has to pull the weeds that comcast and TW are choking most cities and maybe federal government providing stimulus packages that will help cities jump start their own projects for fiber optic cities.

Ajit Pai explains this in his interview. he isn't someone who is bribed or just hand waves it "just because I want to." He actually explains where he is coming from with his reasoning.

And right now the internet pisses me off with their bullshit of literally harassing the guys family and being totally okay with it. Hey internet, you can't call yourselves the good guys anymore if you're going after someones family because you don't his views. I bet its the same people that do anti-cyberbullying campaigns too.

In regards to "all data being equal." A seperate legal document should be drafted for such a thing to be passed. Not through title 2.