How does Anandtech feel about the FCC trying to change the rules of the Internet? (Net Neutrality)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
glenn1

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
SMOGZINN said:
Yes, but the ISPs already charge us for how much data we use, in the form of bandwidth. This would be like local governments telling Amazon that if they don't pay a extra fee to the government they are going to stop all their trucks and make them sit in a special parking lot for at least 4 days so they miss all their next day and 3rd day delivery that their customers paid for.

Some of this has always been going on. It is just that in the last decade or so with broadband becoming the norm competition has really dropped off and consumers have become less informed (in the past a lot larger percent of internet users were technical people, now every grandmother has a internet connection.)
Click to expand...

ISPs charge end users for their use but the providers don't pay anything for the upkeep and maintenance costs of the network needed to send those bits to the end consumer. Amazon is actually a good example in this case because their trucks pay fees to help maintain the roads they drive on. The current net neutrality model is basically subsidizing the business model of content providers at the expense of the content delivers. The Googles and YouTubes are essentially free riders on the infrastructure provided by the ISPs (and I say this as someone who has big concerns with the ISPs or their business practices)

To me the ultimate solution (which to be honest pains my libertarian soul) is that ISPs only own the "to the home" part of the connection, with the rest being considered a true public utility like roads or canals and fees to maintain being collected from both the consumer and supplier sides since they both put 'traffic' onto the web. The government would basically be in charge of maintenance and upkeep of things like how the Interstate Highway System is handled. Then "net neutrality" is a moot point because the free riding isn't going on anymore and everyone is paying their share of the costs (we don't prioritize Amazon trucks on I-95 just because they pay more in fuel taxes or are considered to be more "value-add" then passenger cars). Of course what's fair or desirable isn't necessarily what's possible, and I realize this would probably hugely change the landscape of a major section of the U.S. economy akin to what going to 'universal heatlhcare' would do to a lot of companies.
 
bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
glenn1 said:
ISPs charge end users for their use but the providers don't pay anything for the upkeep and maintenance costs of the network needed to send those bits to the end consumer. Amazon is actually a good example in this case because their trucks pay fees to help maintain the roads they drive on. The current net neutrality model is basically subsidizing the business model of content providers at the expense of the content delivers. The Googles and YouTubes are essentially free riders on the infrastructure provided by the ISPs (and I say this as someone who has big concerns with the ISPs or their business practices)

To me the ultimate solution (which to be honest pains my libertarian soul) is that ISPs only own the "to the home" part of the connection, with the rest being considered a true public utility like roads or canals and fees to maintain being collected from both the consumer and supplier sides since they both put 'traffic' onto the web. The government would basically be in charge of maintenance and upkeep of things like how the Interstate Highway System is handled. Then "net neutrality" is a moot point because the free riding isn't going on anymore. Of course what's fair or desirable isn't necessarily what's possible, and I realize this would probably hugely change the landscape of a major section of the U.S. economy akin to what going to 'universal heatlhcare' would do to a lot of companies.
Click to expand...

This is really an issue that Republican and Democratic voters can find much common ground. It truly is a pity that Republican legislators don't give a crap about Republican voters. It really is in your hands, not ours. You guys should be the ones calling your representatives. Our representatives are already on the right side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
SMOGZINN

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
glenn1 said:
ISPs charge end users for their use but the providers don't pay anything for the upkeep and maintenance costs of the network needed to send those bits to the end consumer. Amazon is actually a good example in this case because their trucks pay fees to help maintain the roads they drive on. The current net neutrality model is basically subsidizing the business model of content providers at the expense of the content delivers. The Googles and YouTubes are essentially free riders on the infrastructure provided by the ISPs (and I say this as someone who has big concerns with the ISPs or their business practices)
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Content providers have to pay for bandwidth as well. They don't have free access to the internet. They pay a provider like AT&T, Verison, or Century Link. Net neutrality does not mean that they don't have to pay for the bandwidth they use.


To me the ultimate solution (which to be honest pains my libertarian soul) is that ISPs only own the "to the home" part of the connection, with the rest being considered a true public utility like roads or canals and fees to maintain being collected from both the consumer and supplier sides since they both put 'traffic' onto the web. The government would basically be in charge of maintenance and upkeep of things like how the Interstate Highway System is handled. Then "net neutrality" is a moot point because the free riding isn't going on anymore and everyone is paying their share of the costs (we don't prioritize Amazon trucks on I-95 just because they pay more in fuel taxes or are considered to be more "value-add" then passenger cars). Of course what's fair or desirable isn't necessarily what's possible, and I realize this would probably hugely change the landscape of a major section of the U.S. economy akin to what going to 'universal heatlhcare' would do to a lot of companies.
Click to expand...

I agree that what you propose is a good idea in general, but it is not really a solution to net neutrality. The 'last mile' or 'to the home' as you call it could still be used to hold the internet hostage. The problem is that so much of that last mile is controlled by just a few companies that they have control of the access to such a large percent of the content providers customers. That puts them in a position to shake down the content providers for extra revenue. It is pay up or we limit your access to your customers. It is literally extortion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and VirtualLarry
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,831
30,599
136
SMOGZINN said:
Bullshit. Content providers have to pay for bandwidth as well. They don't have free access to the internet. They pay a provider like AT&T, Verison, or Century Link. Net neutrality does not mean that they don't have to pay for the bandwidth they use.




I agree that what you propose is a good idea in general, but it is not really a solution to net neutrality. The 'last mile' or 'to the home' as you call it could still be used to hold the internet hostage. The problem is that so much of that last mile is controlled by just a few companies that they have control of the access to such a large percent of the content providers customers. That puts them in a position to shake down the content providers for extra revenue. It is pay up or we limit your access to your customers. It is literally extortion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the last mile providers pushing this want to be paid twice to carry the same traffic. Hell of a business model if you can get it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and BurnItDwn
Stg-Flame

Stg-Flame

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2007
3,681
630
126
I think we are all expecting to lose net neutrality this time. What I'd like to know is how can we work around the bullshit before it begins? There are countries out there who charge daily-monthly fees to access categories (streaming services, texting services, video call services) for mobile phones and continue the practice for online by charging unlimited access fees. If you don't pay the fees, you basically get a demo version of the site with very limited functionality. It's hard to me to imagine that Americans will be SoL with zero options to bypass the nonsense, especially considering what can be done with a few external programs. I've seen people saying that if you're using proxies or VPNs, you can slip by the ISPs detection and can use sites unhindered, but I'm not tech savvy enough to get my hopes up for anything that simple.
 
yllus

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
glenn1 said:
ISPs charge end users for their use but the providers don't pay anything for the upkeep and maintenance costs of the network needed to send those bits to the end consumer. Amazon is actually a good example in this case because their trucks pay fees to help maintain the roads they drive on. The current net neutrality model is basically subsidizing the business model of content providers at the expense of the content delivers. The Googles and YouTubes are essentially free riders on the infrastructure provided by the ISPs (and I say this as someone who has big concerns with the ISPs or their business practices)
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. Big bandwidth users like Google, Facebook and Netflix not only pay for the interconnectivity to get their content everywhere in the world, but they also make individual deals with almost every major ISP in the world, paying them to host special "local" content servers that speed up delivery to that ISP's customers (if you've ever searched for and started to play a YouTube video of just a few # of views and it's uncommonly slow to start streaming, you just hit upon a video not on your "local" content server).

That actually isn't the issue here at all anyways. The real issue is if net neutrality stays repealed in the U.S. for the long term but the rest of the world keeps it in place. It'll be the end of Silicon Valley as a major player: YouTube and Netflix will be just fine, but the next YouTube and Netflix will never get traction because ISPs in the United States charge additional for streaming - but throw in YouTube and Netflix for free in your bundle - and that scrappy startup can't make the same kind of deal with your ISP.

The next YouTube or Netflix would have to base itself in the EU - or, I hope, in a Canada that sees this opportunity and swoops in like a vulture - because it's those countries that will give that fledgling startup a snowball's chance. Great opportunity for us, though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, Vic, sandorski and 2 others
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,831
30,599
136
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
brycejones said:
Don't worry, if you don't like Comcast just go with the competition. You can always vote with your wallet according to Ajit Pai.

Of course this is the same FCC that is trying to claim "competition" exists even if you can't get service from a provider if they are within 5 miles of your location.
Click to expand...

I was just getting ready to respond with the bolded part to your first sentence. Yep, you have plenty of competition even if you can't get it....like the insurance commercial.....'Almost had it....'....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
brycejones said:
Don't worry, if you don't like Comcast just go with the competition. You can always vote with your wallet according to Ajit Pai.

Of course this is the same FCC that is trying to claim "competition" exists even if you can't get service from a provider if they are within 5 miles of your location.
Click to expand...

And the same ISPs are working diligently to outlaw municipal ISPs. With the politicians and the judges in their pocket, how can they lose?

They just chalked up their biggest victory yet — in a courtroom, not a legislative chamber. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday shut down an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to foster the spread of municipal broadband. The FCC, arguing that the public interest was served by more competition in the broadband market, had tried to overturn state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina blocking the creation or expansion of municipal systems.
Click to expand...

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-municipal-broadband-20160812-snap-story.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Engineer

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
bshole said:
And the same ISPs are working diligently to outlaw municipal ISPs. With the politicians and the judges in their pocket, how can they lose?



http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...-municipal-broadband-20160812-snap-story.html
Click to expand...

Why compete when you can litigate and block cheaper.

Lexington was looking at putting in a municipal gigabit network but changed their tune and will be letting a third ISP in to complete against the turd Spectrum (Charter) and the bigger turd Windstream (who can't get close to advertised speed). Will be MetroNet with FTTH and speeds to 1 Gigabit down and 375Mbit up (IIRC). Can't wait to see how this turns out (I'm somewhat excited to get a third player here to see if I can kick Spectrum to the curb).

I think our city counsel chose a private third ISP over the municipal one to avoid problems like the above laws in Tennessee and North Carolina. My opinion is that if cities want to wire themselves and pay for it, more power to them. Of course, the GOP just loves regulation when it's convenient and favors big business, especially monopolistic ones like we have in ISPs now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,363
16,634
146
What I'm interested in, is if now that they're no longer considered Common Carriers, if they'll be liable for information passing over their pipes? I'd love to see them explain that they're not responsible for all the kiddie porn they're permitting at x traffic levels, but aren't also a common carrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
SMOGZINN

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,640
136
So, the FCC is calling the repeal of Net Neutrality 'Restoring Internet Freedom'. We really need to point out that this is a lot like repealing the First Amendment and calling it 'Restoring Speech Freedom'. Net Neutrality is to the internet what the First Amendment is to speech.

It is now my belief that we need a new Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the free flow of information on the internet. The internet has become as important to a free democracy as the Press was in the late 1700s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, repoman0, jackstar7 and 1 other person
Stg-Flame

Stg-Flame

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2007
3,681
630
126
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtZEC21QN-c&feature=youtu.be

New York State Attorney General calls for halt of December 14th vote to kill Net Neutrality over the course of the investigation of fake comments. Some have speculated this could potentially lead to Ajit Pai being forced out of his position if they can be traced back to him. Chances are, the person/people responsible for all the fake comments are so far down the money trail, there will be absolutely no way to tie them to anyone at the FCC.

Still, it's a small win for net neutrality considering we backed them into such a corner they resorted to using bots to process millions of fake comments praising the FCC's plan to kill net neutrality. It's also a victory if the vote gets pushed back away from the colossal media shine called Star Wars. I guarantee the few days leading up to the 14th, all NN news will be obscured by people discussing the movie and all the hype surrounding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom