So long Open Internet, and thanks for all the packets

[Capitalist Pig]

FCC Responds to Critics of Net Neutrality Proposal—FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler says reports of end of net neutrality are "flat out wrong" exclaims the headline of an article I read today on Maximum PC.

The problem? Tom Wheeler and the FCC are full of shit, not that I expected anything less from a bullshit alphabet agency. What I really enjoyed were the pithy and accurate observations by the commenter MaximumMike. Seriously, if you read the [first] article, keep scrolling through the comments and read his. He concisely summarizes all of the main points I've been harping about for years to anyone willing to listen.

Anyway. . . apart from an earnest attempt at initiating open discussion of the clear and present danger to net neutrality in the United States, the real purpose of this thread is to get more exposure for my rambling monologue on the subject from the shoutbox earlier today. Hope you like transcripts!

> eh, i figured the internet's days were numbered in the US
> not that it's going away
> but it won't be the internet as i remembered it
> and it's not because of evolving web standards either
> granting cable companies micromonopolies in broad regional markets was the first sign of the apocalypse
> because without the competition, aside from the usual complaints of any monopolized industry (exponentially higher prices corresponding to noticeable downgrades in service quality and support), when filesharing became big ISPs saw this as a threat to their fragile infrastructure and decided throttling and data caps were perfectly reasonable practices in "punishing" the most bandwidth-hungry users and bandwidth intensive activities (as opposed to implementing long-term solutions to meet evolving demands)
> many of which will soon affect legitimate services (e.g., Netflix) that are patronized by millions of users who are, at least in this case, enjoying a perfectly legal activity
> so by destroying net neutrality, it gives ISPs another weapon that affects not only their subscribers but content providers as well
> because it means that ISPs are no longer obligated to treat all internet traffic as equal
> the packets we send and receive over the internet have no special privilege over those of our neighbors
> extending to businesses as well
> but the FCC's new proposal will change all that
> "but why does an ISP like Comcast want to disenfranchise Netflix subscribers?" one might ask
> who knows
> maybe because nobody watches cable TV anymore
> and Comcast is also a digital television provider
> and since most US markets have only 1 cable provider to a region, and since hybrid fiber-coaxial infrastructures (HFCs) like those used by CABLE PROVIDERS are presently the fastest technologies we have implemented for transferring mass quantities of data over vast distances through the series of tubes that is the internet
> Cable internet is the no-shit winner that appeals to every kind of "internet consumer" -- be they online gamers, file sharers, or media streamers
> I'm sure there's plenty more angles to this than what I can imagine
> What I've just said is only a thin slice of the big picture
> but I think this is a line of reasoning that most people can readily assimilate and gain an understanding of how it affects them

Oh, and one more thing; I normally shun petitions and flatly refuse to sign any (even if their ostensible cause seems agreeable), but in this case I've made an exception. This is a petition telling the FCC where they can stick their new proposal. Please sign it if you use the internet, especially if you are using the internet at this very moment. Thanks.

[Capitalist Pig]

> many of which will soon affect legitimate services (e.g., Netflix) that are patronized by millions of users who are, at least in this case, enjoying a perfectly legal activity

Correction: Netflix is already preparing itself for a knockout blow by increasing their rates for new subscribers within the year.

[Capitalist Pig]

there really ought to be more outrage about this. so far i am disappoint

[Capitalist Pig]

I am bumping this thread to show you all a video, because I don't think any of you heard me when I was explaining why the end of net neutrality portends very bad things for us 'net junkies in the United States. This is really a VERY serious issue, and it involves ALL OF US [in America]. That means YOU.

How do I know this?

Because there's a pretty good chance you were using the Internet to access this website, and you're probably even using it right now to read this very post (on the Internet).

So in case you haven't heard me the first eleventy billion times, here's a brief (3.5 minute) video -- hosted on YouTube, a website on the Internet, and streamed to your Internet-connected device (via the Internet) -- that will help explain it to you.

[Capitalist Pig]

NOW START GIVING A FUCK

[Enters Laughing]

I'd like to say this is an issue I find deeply troubling...




but it would be a lie. It probably doesn't affect people in small, comparatively centralised countries, particularly those who don't often watch tv online.

I just hope that everything will become rapidly wireless and that people will soon be getting their internets for free in many cases. Otherwise, I greatly pity people who are getting their internet throttled and who have to pay a premium compared to other countries like Americans seem to (shit's fucked up etc.!)

[Capitalist Pig]

I'd like to say this is an issue I find deeply troubling...




but it would be a lie. It probably doesn't affect people in small, comparatively centralised countries, particularly those who don't often watch tv online.

I just hope that everything will become rapidly wireless and that people will soon be getting their internets for free in many cases. Otherwise, I greatly pity people who are getting their internet throttled and who have to pay a premium compared to other countries like Americans seem to (shit's fucked up etc.!)

The problem as I see it is that streaming isn't gonna go away. Streaming has definitely taken over filesharing and P2P networks (except for those few aficionados who download everything in a lossless format with maximum resolutions and bit rates, etc) as a main source of content delivery, because it's instant, it's now, and for a small monthly premium (or pay-per-view) format -- or even FREE, as with (most) Hulu content and even the stuff you can find on YouTube, as well as other sites -- you have instant access to all this entertainment and you're not waiting for it to download, or praying for more seeds, and it's available on EVERY device.

Not to mention you have social media and e-mail and a variety of other things that we depend on the Internet for (netbooks and smartphones, anyone?), this has the serious potential to fuck a lot of people over. Now maybe if there was more competition for broadband Internet in the majority of cable's biggest markets, this might not be such a big deal. But it's homogenizing the industry and the major corporations are beginning to eat each other up and gain even MORE of the territory (such as the impending threat of Comcast's potential merging with TWC) and service is becoming shittier because of it, and people are left without options the majority of the time.

But like Google Fiber going out to select cities and setting up 1Gbps -- note that's a one gigabit data rate (which will soon be outmoded with the launch of DOCSIS 3.1 that has hypothetical capability of up to 10Gbps) -- meanwhile the rest of the industry is laughing at them because they're like, "There's no demand for that kind of ridiculous speed!"

Yeah, well, there will be. And Google Fiber is Google's foray into the market, they're hedging their bets, they're futureproofing because they may not look like serious competition now (limited infrastructure, only serves a couple cities, they're slow to roll out, it's hard to negotiate the zoning and rights to dig up neighborhoods and lay buried cable, etc etc), but if Google continues to bankroll that effort and it turns out popular, then they will be a contender in the ISP game because they've already got the inlays to meet the evolving demands of the market for a lightning fast connection.

Because eventually, within our lifetimes, there will come a day where we're telling our kids about the launch of 1Gbps Internet and they'll be like, "Holy shit, you're so old!" because who knows, maybe the norm by then will be 100Gbps, and that'll be the data rate for the low end discount service.

Anyway I'm kinda rambling, and I'm a little tired, so I don't know if I'm making my points as cogently as I could, but you see where I'm going with this. The demand for faster Internet is just going to be there. It's going to grow, and evolve, and within our lifetimes (perhaps by middle age), that's where we're gonna be at.

 

Personally, I would like to see a server in every home that replaces CD stands, DVD/Blu-ray racks, photo albums, bookshelves, etc with permanent digital storage and the same streaming capacities as an HTPC but different in the sense that it's where everyone stores their family photos and vacation scrapbooks and music collections, etc and so fourth. That might be a possibility, too, but I have a feeling I'll be at or near retirement age by the time I'd see it, assuming it catches on at all. We'll just have to wait and see.

[mu4]

This is what you get for deregulation(aka corporate protectionism). Cannot treat infrastructure as mere commodity.

[xerx]

I wonder how this will play out in relation to NSA espionage. I'm guessing that loss of neutrality will reduce their ability to collect data from unprivileged sites which make up a bulk of the Internet. But government attempts to exert control over its citizenry may yet take on less importance if we're being force-fed propaganda mainstream entertainment on a regular basis via those fast channels.

There's also the issue of marketing. Would corporations stand to lose out on market research by throttling large sections of the Internet?

[InvisibleJim]

This is a kind of collusive monopolisation of the market that government is supposed to regulate to remove an externality.

[Capitalist Pig]

This is what you get for deregulation(aka corporate protectionism). Cannot treat infrastructure as mere commodity.

If the infrastructure wasn't commanded by government-enforced monopolies in the first place, this probably wouldn't matter. As it stands, however, most US markets only have a single company providing cable Internet services. And since cable is the only true option for broadband Internet, this is a problem.

[InvisibleJim]

If the infrastructure wasn't commanded by government-enforced monopolies in the first place, this probably wouldn't matter. As it stands, however, most US markets only have a single company providing cable Internet services. And since cable is the only true option for broadband Internet, this is a problem.

You are right here; net neutrality would be economically meaningless if there were 4-5 major providers running complete networks and forcing competitiveness; but if there is only 1 provider then they can distort the market. Unfortunately governments (local, national) have had a lot of fun licencing monopolies to build the first set of lines, but they haven't created a mechanism to remove these licences.

[mu4]

If the infrastructure wasn't commanded by government-enforced monopolies in the first place, this probably wouldn't matter. As it stands, however, most US markets only have a single company providing cable Internet services. And since cable is the only true option for broadband Internet, this is a problem.

You just can't treat infrastructure as a commodity, it's fundamentally not private space because making it private means the concept of net neutrality becomes null and void. Private is private, i.e non-neutral. Private interest is fundamentally non-neutral.

The idea of neutrality in a business is not mechanically functional because the basis of business is self-interest.

[Capitalist Pig]

You just can't treat infrastructure as a commodity, it's fundamentally not private space because making it private means the concept of net neutrality becomes null and void. Private is private, i.e non-neutral. Private interest is fundamentally non-neutral.

The idea of neutrality in a business is not mechanically functional because the basis of business is self-interest.

And yet here we sit, with the "benevolent bureaucracy" threatening to take away the very thing you purport business and industry is incapable of achieving on their own. So clearly, neutrality isn't something achieved through regulation, either, because the FCC is threatening right now to make the concept of net neutrality null and void. If that is the case, then what is the harm of having privatized infrastructure? It would seem that someone in your position would have to admit at this point that we are fucked either way.

See, under a privatized infrastructure, net neutrality is null and void because of competition. Not because of the tip of a policy maker's pen.

[mu4]

And yet here we sit, with the "benevolent bureaucracy" threatening to take away the very thing you purport business and industry is incapable of achieving on their own. So clearly, neutrality isn't something achieved through regulation, either, because the FCC is threatening right now to make the concept of net neutrality null and void. If that is the case, then what is the harm of having privatized infrastructure? It would seem that someone in your position would have to admit at this point that we are fucked either way.

See, under a privatized infrastructure, net neutrality is null and void because of competition. Not because of the tip of a policy maker's pen.

It is business protecting it's own interest via government that is creating this issue. I'm not going to fantasize and imagine a world where power and power structures don't exist. They always form and always intervene in one's life. It is when individuals use their own agency and protect their interests thru their own power that things can be kept from the control of those who would use existing power structures maliciously. Infrastructure are mechanisms that operate not on a private level and having it be under the power of private entities is little more than under the power of dictators. Just because the state you currently reside in is threatening net neutrality doesn't mean anything. Anyways the business interest exact defense against net neutrality is private ownership. Anyways it's pointless to talk about this if you imagine how a world will be without power structures intervening in your life. All switching government for business is switching one for another, one chain for another.

Anyways there is no competition for infrastructure, if you own a house, you can't change one road company for another, no more than you can change one cable company for another. The lines are owned by one group and not another. And in totally private world, you simply get what you get, which is how it is currently because private companies own the cabling and own the infrastructure of the internet. That's why they have a regional monopoly, because people can't easily move and well if you want to use the "road", you have to use the one that's constructed outside your house, unless you want to pay the price of cabling yourself to the nearest competitor of your choice. That's simply not an option for most people.

[xerx]

China has its own Internet. Some countries have plans to make their own: Germany, Iran.

We can make ours. There's no reason some motivated people with knowledge in electrical engineering and rocket science couldn't manufacture their own satellites ( large undersea cables are impractical.. as yet ), esp. now that 3D printing technology is advancing by leaps and bounds. You can even copy from plans to assemble a satellite if you don't have the necessary skills.

[ashlesha]

i signed the petition. tl;dr:::

What does that mean? It means we could be headed toward a pay-per-view Internet where Web sites have fees. It means we may have to pay a network tax to run voice-over-the-Internet phones, use an advanced search engine, or chat via Instant Messenger.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-101

[Ainfigur]

This sounds too retarded to be true, the fuck is wrong with people.

I'm interested as to whether this would only affect sites and services within the US.

[Capitalist Pig]

I'm interested as to whether this would only affect sites and services within the US.

For end users, it only affects you if you live in the US or access the web through a US-based proxy.

[Ainfigur]

For end users, it only affects you if you live in the US or access the web through a US-based proxy.

I hope it stays that way, though what happens over there usually creeps over here after a decade or two, unless there is significant public resistance.

It's another issue of massive bodies of power being able to do whatever the fuck they like unchecked, be that private or state. Please don't descend into some petty "muh freemarkets" vs "muh gubberment" argument because that's totally not the point. The system is fine, it's the way the system operates that needs reforming and that's where the solutions will lay. Imo.

[Capitalist Pig]

Please don't descend into some petty "muh freemarkets" vs "muh gubberment" argument because that's totally not the point.

No, it's precisely the point. Seeing as Comcast is at the focal point of all of this controversy for being a monopoly and the only way it's gotten there is through government enforcement of their monopoly status, despite having horrible customer service and one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any other company in America year after year (see here, here, here, here, and here).

The system is fine, it's the way the system operates that needs reforming and that's where the solutions will lay. Imo.

If that's the case, then the kind of reforms that would fix this problem would mean less government intervention in telecommunications and public infrastructure. It's the "system" that has gotten us here in the first place, and it has failed miserably. Therefore, the answer is less system, not more.

That being said, fundamentally I am opposed to having the concept of net neutrality written as law. The government created this issue in the first place, and net neutrality as law represents further interventionism by the state in order to "fix" an externality that it created in the first place. Ideally, the government would back off the entire issue, permit competition for providing cable TV and Internet services in markets where it has been previously prohibited, and the whole thing would just go away. Unfortunately, my hand is forced in this matter to prevent an undesirable situation from getting any worse.

[Ainfigur]

No, it's precisely the point. Seeing as Comcast is at the focal point of all of this controversy for being a monopoly and the only way it's gotten there is through government enforcement of their monopoly status, despite having horrible customer service and one of the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any other company in America year after year (see here, here, here, here, and here).

If that's the case, then the kind of reforms that would fix this problem would mean less government intervention in telecommunications and public infrastructure. It's the "system" that has gotten us here in the first place, and it has failed miserably. Therefore, the answer is less system, not more.

That being said, fundamentally I am opposed to having the concept of net neutrality written as law. The government created this issue in the first place, and net neutrality as law represents further interventionism by the state in order to "fix" an externality that it created in the first place. Ideally, the government would back off the entire issue, permit competition for providing cable TV and Internet services in markets where it has been previously prohibited, and the whole thing would just go away. Unfortunately, my hand is forced in this matter to prevent an undesirable situation from getting any worse.

What solutions would you suggest though? Sorry if I sounded condescending or whatever in that post it just annoys me when people make these things into these big ideological arguments which don't present any sensible solutions.

Why can't the solution be restrictions on lobbying and big money, like we have in europe? That would fix so much in the US it's ridiculous.

[Saberstorm]

crap, does this mean all the great innovations will have to begin in Europe now, or Asia?

[InvisibleJim]

There are some good analogues to this in the oil and gas sector in the North Sea versus in the US Gulf of Mexico.

In the North Sea the fiscal regime is such that all oil companies (multi-national or small) essentially operate as a 6% above inflation return on yearly operating cost of the assets with a 15% IRR of ROCE. The result is that there are no financial incentives for an operator of infrastructure to allow a new entrant to use available capacity for a tariff, because this doesn't increase the operating cost but adds operational complexity and therefore central office costs.

Therefore 1 barrel of oil of someone else oil was less valuable than 1 barrel of their own oil, even if for the macroeconomy the opposite was true.

In addition the government had no power to influence the behaviour of the operators under the concession structure which gives full power to the operator.

The response in the late 90s/early 90s was that the government changed the taxation system to incentivise tariffing of oil through existing facilities (effectively making tariffed oil tax free) which provided incentives for major infrastructure owners to handle other peoples fluids and makes the government more tax by connecting the additional value of more fields.

This is very similar to internet bandwidth because net neutrality ensures that your own bits are not prefered over anothers bits; which in a concession system (one infrastructure provider rolls out in one area) is not truly the case.

What should happen is that the government should change the taxation system to encourage the transfer of other peoples bits to make the monopoly holder want to transfer other peoples bits even if there is no net neutrality. This will then provide heavy incentives for the owner to be financial invested in granting a useful service to the users of the data and a fair business model between competitors.

In this way the externality is eliminated, business receive maximum value and maximum competition which is both aligned with customers receiving a decent quality service and macroeconomic behaviour.

[Aquagraph]

I agree with Cpig about true net neutrality being not fundamentally right as a legislation but it being better than Comcast monopoly. The following is a bit offtopic but there has been some talk about the necessity of government providing infrastructural neutralities. Well, Somalia didn't need any to become one of the best telecommunication providers in the world.

[Capitalist Pig]

@hkkmr, I feel like we probably agree on a lot more points than where we disagree. Unfortunately, at the heart of our discord is just a fundamentally different mode of thinking that affects how we rationalize the world and reason through it's abundant complexity. It is for that reason that I have to bow out of this debate with you, because on each and every occasion whether past or present we've engaged each other like this, I rapidly burn myself out from feeling like I'm repeatedly running up against a brick wall. And by that I mean no disrespect to you or your intelligence. But from where I'm sitting, there always seems to be something deeper to our inability to reconcile our differences than a mere difference in ideology. I just can't put my finger on it (perhaps this is one area where Socionics actually proves itself useful, no? ).

With that out of the way, I also wanted to say that I am insanely jealous that Atlanta is on Google's list of planned rollouts for Fiber. If they ever came to Denver, I'd be out there with a shovel and a hard hat volunteering my help in breaking ground for laying pipe. Then once that's complete, I'd be the first in line to open my account.

[Creepy-bg]

@cpig

you might find this an interesting read...

http://hustlebear.com/2011/01/05/why...et-neutrality/

[Absurd]

I'm out of beer.