If you trust our gov't is doing this in the people's best interest you must work for them next your gonna tell it's a right and your entitled to it

And my ISP is a service with bandwidth I consume--be it mobile where I pay per gigabyte, or at home, where I pay for higher/slower speeds. I pay for access to a service, their job is to grant me access--not chicken little me around and tell me what websites I'm allowed to visit. Same with a power company. It's their job to provide me with power, not tell me what I can and cannot use my power for. That's the argument I'm making. Neither should have the right to tell me how I can use the services that I've bought.

Yeah but to be fair your electric company wants you to use more power because the more that you use the more money they collect from you. Your ISP charges people the same amount whether they use 0 gigabytes or 1000 gigabytes. I don't think you can really compare the two.

Why does the my power company offer money off my bill for buying things like hot water heaters that use less energy?

The government IS regulating it. This is now back in the news because companies are trying to have that regulation removed.

I hate to sound defeatist, but it doesn't matter. Even if there is a huge backlash against taking away these consumer protections and this is stopped, they will just be gutted in a different way.

Then can you explain how the FCC was able to step in and fine ISPs for this behavior before the Net Neutrality regulation was put into effect in 2015? For example:
https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

There are already laws on the books that cover anti-competitive stuff. Removing some regulation that was enacted only two years ago is hardly going to be the collapse of the Internet as we know it. In fact, I doubt you'll even see a difference whether it stays or goes.

In theory, sure. In principle, no. People get their news from social media and their search results from the first couple of hits on Google. Yeah, there's some outliers, but by and large, that's the fact.

Not a dig at you, nor a comment on net neutrality but nothing could be further from the truth. Damn near everybody wants free stuff. Every year, Charlotte has Speed Week, they close down the streets and all sorts of booths set up with every sponsor of NASCAR, from Kellogs to Go Daddy. You'll see these long lines, hoards of people wanting to get whatever the giveaway is. Sometimes it's a snack pack of Doritos or Cheerios other times it's a cheap plastic trinket. I swear you could hand out paper sacks of dogshit and there would be people fighting to get the last bag.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled program (by the way iScored is great)

I believe the FCC was involved with this because it was related to the phone service. Once Net Neutrality is repealed, the FCC will no longer be able to set rules on ISPs, but the FTC would have oversight. The FTC is a much less powerful body and it's much harder for them to enforce any rules.

For people who think that "everything was fine before" are missing the fact that these rules exist solely because ISPs broke them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166

Yes this story is from Canada, but these are things that have already happened.

Let's not forget that companies like Netflix also have to pay for their bandwidth. They don't get to put stuff on the Internet for free. If Comcast wants more money from them because they send so much traffic, they should be fighting to become Netflix's ISP. Then they would get to double dip on the provider and subscriber side. Win/Win!

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004/everything-you-need-know-about-why-net-neutrality-harry-khachatrian#

this article is ridiculous and insanely slanted. It is a very poor summary of Net Neutrality issues. Yes, Google benefits under Net Neutrality ... but so does every other person (and business) in the USA who is not an ISP. It implies Net Neutrality would somehow hurt small businesses competing with Google. That's simply not true. There are no aspects of the legislation that would in any way hinder any online or app-based businesses other than ISPs themselves. In fact, it *ensures* that small businesses can compete with larger ones, by making sure ISPs can't favor one company's app or data over another's.

The article's conclusion is the opposite of true. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, small businesses will not be able to compete with larger ones, who will buy privileged acccess to the major ISPs, and all startups or small businesses will be relegated to the slow lanes or blocked altogether -- unless they pay fees they can't afford to literally every ISP in America.

Yes, you're missing something...

You ORDER a hamburger at McDonald's, and PAY them for your food
McDonald's had to invest in the equipment to deliver a product (hamburger) you want to buy.

You ORDER internet service from your ISP, and PAY them for that service for your bill.
Comcast had to invest in equipment to deliver a product (internet service) you wanted to buy.

Netflix and Amazon are also paying their ISP's to connect them to the internet.
The ISP's they use are getting paid for the use of their equipment.

You, and Netflix, are paying for the service already and are NOT using it for free like you analogy implies.

Or to put it another way:
Just because ATT, the telephone company, also owns Direct TV, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to BLOCK a telephone call I make to Dish Network to order service; even if redirecting or blocking my call to Dish could help them sell me on Direct TV.

It's kind of weird that you would cite a case of an ISP abusing its customers as an argument for repealing legislation that would specifically prevent that abuse.

The FCC didn't really do anything in this case. They investigated, but couldn't prove any formal wrongdoing, since Net Neutrality wasn't a law yet. Net Neutrality was a principle that most ISPs followed, and this case was investigated because it violated the principles of Net Neutrality, but it hadn't been enacted into law yet. It's nice that the ISP voluntarily stopped blocking VOIP calls, but the FCC at the time probably couldn't have forced them to do anything. I think it's a perfect case study for why Net Neutrality is needed.

Disagree. There is a huge difference between a website showing specific results (you can always choose what website you go to, and it will always cost you nothing, and it will always be instantaneous! Changing websites is trivial!) and your actual ISP, which literally controls which parts of the internet that you have access to, and in many instances cannot be changed without great cost, if at all. It's just not an analogy that holds any water.

Umm, they fined the company $15,000... My point is the net neutrality regulation, which was not in place prior to 2015, is not needed because we already have rules and laws preventing a lot of this stuff that people are concerned about. It will have practically no impact on anybody.

No, they didn't. The company voluntarily donated $15,000 to the U.S. treasury in exchange for the FCC dropping its investigation. If Net Neutrality had been in place, then they could have fined them. It was one of the case studies used to argue in favor of Net Neutrality.

except we don't. Net Neutrality *is* those rules. That's why ISPs (and ISPs ALONE!) want it gone.

Donated $15k? You're kidding me, right? If the FCC had no teeth because there was no net neutrality, why did they donate $15k to the FCC?

Rhetorical question. We can agree to disagree here.

Because they didn't want to be tied up in years worth of litigation and possibly a supreme court case over whether the FCC had the power to enforce Net Neutrality rules. (a question the Net Neutrality legislation in 2014 was intended to answer definitively)

Nobody wants to prioritize some traffic types over others? Then why does every home router offer such features? Why do these devices offer 'priority' tagging of devices, etc?

So nobody wants QoS?

Again... throwing the baby out with the bath water because you don't want to pay attention to the details.

People DO want differentiated services... they want what they want to be the best... but what they are against (shocker) is paying for it. And people like yourself use the latter, to believe they don't want the former (prioritization) - which is proven wrong over and over.

People don't want to be charged for what they don't think they should be - that's what they are really against.

But if you asked them "would you like to prioritize netflix quality over your email" - they'd say YES.

The fact there are new disruptors coming along that ride on their high speed internet lines they sell... is just tough shit. They should not be able to block traffic simply because they represent a competitive threat to the cable company.

They need to innovate if they want to remain competitive, not throw up barriers.

Cable providers got into the high speed internet access game - that means they should carry all traffic.

That doesn't mean however that the cable companies should need to give them preferential access, or free access. Which is exactly what Netflix was looking for. The ISPs should be able to fairly share access and recover costs for peering that is lopsided.

What subsidies were these specifically?

No, again, you miss why they are different from the previous post

You buy energy from your energy provider... you have no idea, and no consequence if that energy comes from around the corner, or three states away. The voltage is all the same. You get one thing.. voltage and they ensure it's maintained. As long as the utility can provide enough power to maintain everyone's demand load... the horizon they have to worry about is only between them and the consumer.

ISPs do not just provide 'voltage' or 'universal bits' - they are a gateway. Where you are trying to go through that gateway is significant in how you consume what that ISP provides. You buy a certain level of service, but WHO and WHERE you are trying to connect impacts the service you are purchasing.

From an ISP you as a consumer are expecting a END TO END product... but that's not actually what you are buying... from your ISP or your utility.

Capitalism is mostly fine, but the consumer also has the right to know what they are buying in this system of government. In your scenario of protecting investment, if a cable company is going to slow down service for a competing product such as Netflix then the customer should be informed before they sign up and pay for said service. Otherwise it is a bait and switch. Without Net Neutrality it would be so wide ranging which products could get affected by the service provider that it would be almost impossible for a customer to stay informed about the features that affect them. Also, when there are limited choices in providers such as in utilities some regulation is needed to keep the customer from getting bilked. Power utilities are regulated including prices for this reason. They make a profit and their stocks are usually decent/boring dividend plays but the profit is kept under control for sake of doing business in a necessary monopoly or near monopoly. The government allows steady profit with reasonable controls/regulation.

No, but they game the old peering model... then expect people to treat them as equals.

Wholesale longhaul providers built a business out of interconnects... Then, you use your cheap peering access to goto a Netflix and say "hey, we can get you customer access cheaper than Comcast can sell you access"... and now that interconnect provider is no longer an interconnect, but a content firehose... completely disrupting the model they got the equitable peering relationship in the first place.

The equitable peers interchange model that everyone wants to point to about their given rights about peering access is from a different time and period of who the players were.

"Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in our economy and society – for all Americans. For that reason, the FCC has adopted comprehensive reforms of its Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation (ICC) systems to accelerate broadband build-out to the approximately 23 million Americans (as of December 31, 2013) who lack access to infrastructure capable of providing 10/1 Mbps fixed broadband."
source: https://www.fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf

AT&T received $3 billion from this program.
source: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949

Ten different ISPs received $1.5 billion in Government funding from CAF-II
source: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/special-report/at-t-frontier-others-accept-1-5b-caf-ii-funding-despite-fcc-s-changing-broadband

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 earmarked and additional $7.2 billion for expansion of broadband services in the US.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

The Universal Service Fund is a program that ran from 1996 to 2011, and gave $4.5 billion dollars a year to ISPs for the purpose of expanding broadband.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

There is also, of course, all the R&D and internet infrastructure the U.S. Government created on its own. The High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 built on the achievements of ARPANET and developed the first web browser, the first fiber optic network, and was responsible for broadening the scope of the internet beyond Government research institutions.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_Act_of_1991

Once again, internet is not a necessity, I don't need it. I just choose to have it.

that's not a quote from me. it's a quote from the FCC. Only a backwards third world nation would not see broadband internet as a necessity.

Do you seriously not know how to read? Take the time to read the well written and educated posts before you start just babbling about something you clearly haven't read up on. I'm all about debate but please do some research first.

Even some of the board members of the FCC know what kind of BS is going on with all of this crap.

https://gizmodo.com/fcc-commissioner-blasts-her-own-agency-for-withhold-evi-1821133018

In this thread I am reading many of the same arguments. Much of it based around streaming movies. People like their streaming, and they are afraid the internet provider is going to hold their streaming hostage.

But there is another way of holding your streaming hostage. Imagine there is a new more bandwidth intensive service, that most of us don’t care about - some 3D virtual reality city planning / real time traffic something or another. The company that provides it, charges $100K per month subscription. And this new service, when in use, brings the ISPs infrastructure to its knees. The ISP doesn’t throttle anybody, but the net result is, poor movie quality, because Netflix experiences too many packets lost, and starts sending lower quality content.

This is NOT hyperbole. And I am not indicating my conclusion on what level of regulation should or should not be in place. But throttling can protect customers.

Several years ago, I was asked to attended a conference for carriers. One of the topics was a discussion on how to protect their service from ill behaved phone apps. It seems a new turn based, multi-player game was gaining in popularity. It polled the server once per second to determine if any moves had taken place. With lots of usage, this was flooding the network, and causing problems for everybody on the network. It would have been easy for the developer to use push technology to gain the same responsiveness, at a fraction of the bandwidth. But there was no impetus to do so, and it would have been more work. The carriers were trying to solve/mitigate the problem in an ethical and responsible way.

And for other people, it is a necessity. Without it I can't tele-commute, which cuts down my job options drastically. But oh well, maybe I could become a grave digger.

More than 20 internet pioneers and leaders including the "father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak have urged the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal Net Neutrality, describing the plan as "based on a flawed and factually inaccurate" understanding of how the internet works:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/11/net-neutrality-vint-cerf-tim-berners-lee-fcc-letter

Lol come on. It's definitely a good tool for businesses and I won't argue that Pezpunk but I'm just saying that I personally don't need the internet and I think that would apply to most people as well.

If that's what it takes to pay the bills, eat, and support your family that's what you will do. Are you above that or something?

Oh, and one more thing to ponder…

If ISPs and Netflix can’t work something out to ensure there is enough bandwidth so that streaming can peacefully coexist, Netflix may build out the infrastructure themselves. They would have their own dedicated pipe into your home for streaming Netflix. At which point, Netflix becomes the cable company. Customers will insist that they make other/3rd party services available to them, a new service will come along that taxes THEIR infrastructure, and we’re back in the same boat.

EDIT: slight reword to make it clear that this is not a prediction, it is just a hypothetical for people to ponder.

this is utter nonsense! Netflix is not going to spend hundreds of billions running cable (much which was paid for by the Government) and ISP infrastrucure! Get a grip.

Furthermore, this is about way more than Netflix versus Comcast. EVERY new internet site or service is going to be subjected to throttling or blocking at any ISP's whim. Have a great new idea that people love? awesome, after you finish building it, you get to negotiate with every ISP in America so that its customers can access it! now THAT is how you stifle innovation.

I knew somebody would say this. A quick google search...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/05/technology/netflix-open-connect-network/index.htm

I didn't intend to imply that Netflix will or should do this. I should have said, "Oh, and one more thing for people to ponder...". It was intended to be a hypothetical for people to ponder.

I will edit the original post to make that clear.

no, that's a network for sending video *TO* ISPs. not to become a consumer ISP.

And to address your hypothetical -- it doesn't matter if the ISP is called "Netflix" (again, a thing that's never going to happen) or "Comcast" -- your Internet Service Provider should not be throttling and blocking content.

Internet is a SERVICE. Like phone, water, gas, electricity - you pay for a service and you should get your service. It's not any more complicated than that.

You pick up your phone and you expect a dial tone. You open your tap and expect water. You turn on your stove and you expect a flame. You turn on a lamp and you expect a light.

You go to a website and you EXPECT THAT WEBSITE.

Bad example. Your city throttles your water usage -- I can't water my lawn half the month. Electric companies throttle electricity usage - they're called brownouts, happen a lot in California and during hot weather when everyone wants to use their AC. Electric companies even give you a discount if you let them remotely turn your AC off during specific times of the day.

Land of 10,000 lakes my ass

Bad re-analogy - the examples you give throttle USAGE (ie. bandwidth) not ACCESS. The water company doesn't say you can't water your lawn, just that you get a certain amount of water a month. The power company doesn't say you can power your fridge but not your computer.

Although I don't personally agree with bandwidth caps, as in my opinion if you pay for a certain speed you should get it fully and not capped, that seems to be generally accepted. The problem begins when they start restricting access - they go from common carrier to dictating access.

Cable companies already have a regional monopoly. Even with that, they've either been unable or unwilling to compete with the likes of Netflix (at least in terms of cost). I'm speculating, but I think killing those types of services will be their first priority. So many people are "cutting the cord". They are doing that because there are alternatives to cable (or satellite) that didn't exist in the past. Most of them are much, much cheaper than what these ISPs provide, and are putting out good original content. Instead of adapting and competing on a level playing field, the ISPs would much rather remove the regulations that are in place that prevent them from slanting the field in their favor and make it cost-prohibitive for you to choose a service other than their own.

I think that's just phase 1. I could see it becoming much more orwellian than that over time.

I read quite well thank you and since my opinion doesn't match yours you attack me how noble of you I'm going back to reading the pinball related threads I follow as I'm clearly out classed here pardon me sir as i will now leave this to you experts

Yeah but the people here that are fighting for net neutrality shouldn't agree with Netflix having to do that.

I'm not making an analogy, I'm just responding to yours! You said: " You open your tap and expect water. You turn on a lamp and you expect a light," and I simply countered that it isn't true -- if you're in a brownout, you turn on a lamp, you won't get any light. If I turn on my sprinkler when I'm not supposed to, I get a progressively larger fine from the city. That's not about usage, it's about access -- I'm not allowed to access my water on certain days and I can't access my electricity at certain times. (well, I've never lived in a brownout area, so that's never hit me before). It's about access AND usage.

That made me laugh.

NSFW!

True, but it proves my point. Netflix taking ownership of a larger piece of the puzzle.

https://fiber.google.com/about/

There is enough money to be made, that, if in an effort to shore up their business, a company needs to invest in their own infrastructure, they will.

BTW, I think this is a non-issue for many millennials. They don't have cable. They rely on OTA and wireless, where there is already competition. And more of the population is following that trend.

All of those citations are about the efforts to expand broadband to areas that businesses found unprofitable to do so on their own. That is not 'Government fueled and subsidized the growth of ISPs' - that is the government creating programs to subsidize services that otherwise would not be built out. Again... a shred of truth being extrapolated into stuff that isn't the same thing.

This is the government pushing private industries forward where they were hesitant themselves.

Isn't that like saying the government created everything since they fund grants and public universities where much of the research is done? Or the clique... Al Gore created the internet.
Or maybe we should be saying all of us are hypocrits because we are all using technologies that evolved from those efforts in all our post-dotcom economy??? Funny, I doubt you view Telsa's use of grants and government funded research the same way.

Government funds research - That really doesn't mean the line laid in the front yard of a house built in 2005 in suburbia was "paid for by government subsidies"

Tell that to a person trying to interview for a job.. or search for housing.. etc. We're a digital society now - that's reality. And why having public access to the internet via things like libraries is a thing.. and important. So those who can't afford it themselves, still have access.

It's no longer a luxury.

Big difference between trying to build a logical network for a CDN... and being another network access provider.

Netflix's network was effectively a CDN to ensure quality delivery of their traffic... which then, they wanted the access providers to let them peer the Netflix CDN to the ISP networks for _FREE__

And then tried to shame ISPs for blocking Netflix when they didn't like the 'get access for free' argument Netflix pitched.

Your dial tone used to only goto your local telephone company... it had to be manually transferred to another company to go 'long distance'. You paid two phone bills, your telephone and LD bill. Phones were not something that just had global reach.

Your water and gas utilities are a service you buy and consume locally - its nothing like making a call to someone far away who isn't even using the same network or company you do.

Your internet access is not something that is universally end-to-end. You aren't paying for a path from your computer to some datacenter in texas. You are paying for access to a network.. that has access to OTHER networks.

It's more like paying for your driveway... which connects to the public road. Paying for a driveway did not give you a clear route from home to work... just the driveway and you have an expectation of how the public road should be managed. But you don't actually own it or rent it.. or even really ultimately say how its ran.