https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/fcc-starts-dismantling-internet-neutrality

There's a pretty active discussion over here.

Essentially your internet provider has to treat all traffic equally so netflix gets the same delivery speed as amazon prime or HBO go. It's all the same. They also cannot censor what websites you have access to. So if there was a new site that was criticizing Comcast, they could block access to that news.

That's the basic gist of it. The actual impact is unknown at this point but I'd expect higher prices for streaming video, censored content and tiered packages for what websites you can access. Basically as a consumer you will most likely be paying more money for less product.

Net neutrality is the current state of the internet. It stops companies from choosing what sites they allow you to visit. It also stops them from limiting speeds on certain sites.

Without net neutrality companies like Verizon could choose to slow down or ban use of sites like Netflix.com vs. another streaming service.

The major ramification is potential censorship of information

It's very hard to understand and the more you read about it the more confused you become seems like. Most articles you read you can't believe because they are so biased so I don't know what to believe.

It is all explained simply at this link --

http://bfy.tw/RNw

look in the upper right of the results

Net Neutrality in a fun, easy to understand webcomic nutshell:

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

TL;DR: Dismantling Net Neutrality only helps telecom companies by allowing them to throttle, block, or redirect web traffic from sites that don’t pay extra money to the ISP.

Example: say two companies vying for the same audience have websites. Company A is a small startup and company B is well established. Without net neutrality, company B can pay an ISP extra money to throttle or even block entirely, all access to company A’s website and stymie any competition (and A can’t do anything because they don’t have the cash flow to compete financially/pay the ISP money to be unthrottled or unblocked.)

With Net Neutrality, it ensures that all websites are equally available to all users.

What about this though. I really hope that I don't sound stupid here but do IF the cable companies own and has invested their money into all of the equipment and stuff to provide the internet service and netflix and amazon etc is using their service and it's hurting their tv business, why wouldn't they have the right to stop them in some way or another?

I mean you can't walk in McDonald's and start using their equipment to make hamburgers and french fries to put them out of business right? You can't set up shop inside Wal Mart and start selling products etc. I know it's a wild comparison but it's kind of the same thing seems like.

I don't want my internet restricted no more than anyone else believe me, but I'm just trying to look at the big picture here and figure this out. Am I missing something here?

And for another view of the same 'data points' used in that comic... see how things aren't always as clear as they seem - https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/#61ea033b1c4d

That's the flag.. but not the content most push under it.

For instance, Netflix leading up to the 2015 Obama-era discussion was pushing for free-exchanges of data.. basically asking for a free ride, instead of mutual agreements on sharing cost/access.

And everyone who says "bandwidth is basically free!!" has never had to be the one paying for the service contracts on their core gear Bandwidth is hyper-scalable... but not free. So when the pipes need expanding... someone has to pay. Companies like Netflix think they should be able to show up at an ISP and be let in on someone else's dime.

Bottom line is you don't want any legislation passed on it. Basically, would be putting government controls on web, and guess how that will turn out for the average consumer. Unfortunately, very deceptive name that makes people assume it is a good thing. If the government wants it and the providers want it, typically consumers should not.

Every day you read about people "unplugging" from cable or Directv. Most are not really unplugging because they retain high speed internet through their cable provider, AT&T, etc. Using that generic "net neutral" Internet connection, they are now picking and choosing the streaming services they want to "watch TV on". So in essence the cable company has gone from both Internet AND content provider to simply the generic high speed Internet provider. Their bill has been cut drastically too since they are only providing data.

Now imagine laws being changed so the Internet provider could control what streaming services you can have high speed access to? They could provide you with unlimited high speed access to the ones that they either own or have a sweetheart deal with and shut out or throttle the others. So now instead of being a generic high speed Internet provider, they can play favorites with content providers. This explains why the cable companies are pushing this so hard to remove the net neutrality laws.

On the other hand with growing competition in the industry, consumers in the future will have choices. For instance I have three different options for high speed Internet in my neighborhood (not including cell hot spots). Should a provider throttle Netflix or Amazon they would lose business in droves. Also, as technology marches on, 1080p and even 4k streams are becoming easier to pull off. Wasn't that long ago that Netflix chugged and stuttered on 480p. So I don't think the sky is falling the way a lot of people do, but I still agree that the answer here is somewhere in the middle and would not want to see neutrality go away completely. The smaller companies would be the ones that suffer most. Netflix had to start somewhere and total lack of regulation could easily prevent new emerging companies from catching hold.

The bottom line is consumers should be paying ISPs for their bandwidth. What we use that for, and how slow or fast it is shouldn’t be decided by the ISP.

Who Dey, your analogy holds true to ISPs. You cannot just use their product without paying them, just as you cannot go into McDonalds or Walmart and use their equipment

I don’t want to have to decide which ISP to use based on their Netflix speed or political affiliations

What's strange though is they do give us the customer unlimited internet usage to watch netflix, youtube, and twitch tv etc so it almost seems like they would put the burden on the people and just say.....you can watch all of the netflix and twitch that you want to but after you use a certain amount of bandwidth, you are going to have to start paying us more. The only people that would care about that would be the data hogs.

Yup, it's all about regulation and control. Scare tactics are used to make people believe they will no longer be able to watch Netflix videos at a decent speed or visit certain websites they like. None of that is true. If the government start regulating the internet and isp's, where do you think they will get the resources to do so? From you of course. All this amounts to taxes/fees being added to internet services and nothing changing about the type of service you get.

Your isp could also provide you with tiered access to different web sites.

$19.99 = access to Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and sales (amazon, AliExpress)
$39.99 = all that plus access to YouTube, Netflix, hbo go.
$59.99 = all that plus access to small independent web sites (.org sites, wiki) stuff that doesn’t pay the isp to be featured.

If you like the way the internet works now (anyone can create a website that anyone can visit) the current regulations support that. Theoretically, taking away title 2 protections could negatively impact Pinside. This is why I think the moderators have allowed this conversation on here. Removing the current protections could easily lead to websites needing to pay isps for traffic to their websites. That would mean that Pinside would have to generate enough revenue to compete with other online traffic.

It's another lie by the gov't which eliminates free market competition so you have to pay more and get less (sounds alot like Obama care don't it)

Is this another case where everybody wants something for nothing? I've had to work my whole life since I was 15 so I expect to have to pay for things that I buy. If a company is trying to sell me their product and I feel the value is not there for what they are charging me, I simply won't buy their product and if enough people feel the same way they risk going out of business. If I feel that the internet is too expensive I can live without it. I'd probably be better off without it anyway truthfully.

No.

Right. And as a Comcast customer, I already have tiered bandwidth fees. If I want faster internet, I pay the higher "Blast" fees. If I don't, internet bandwidth is lower, and things like Netflix and YouTube load slower, and thus in lower resolutions.

What this whole situation is about is having ISPs limit access to websites, not their bandwidth. The internet has become a utility for many people. If my electrical provider said "We're now going to limit all power that goes to Sylvania branded lightbulbs instead of Westinghouse. If you want power to be sent to Sylvania bulbs, you'll have to pay for a different tiered power service." That's what abandoning Net Neutrality would be like. Instead, I pay a fee for the amount of electricity my home consumes. More electricity, the higher my bill. Likewise, the more bandwidth I pay for from my ISP, the faster my internet is. They shouldn't have the right to regulate what sites get priority. Same goes for telecom companies. I pay for X amount of gigs of usage, I shouldn't have to pay for what sites they allow me to access.

Ok so you are ok with paying for faster speeds, but would you be ok with paying for the amount that you use also? When you go to a restaurant you are charged for the amount of food that you eat unless it's golden corral of course.

In reality, a site like Pinside probably won't be seriously impacted.
On the other hand, I've been streaming Radio Margaritaville since Friday evening. With the current proposed changes, what's to say my ISP (AT&T) doesn't choose to throttle the SiriusXM's feed? Then what? Will I need to subscribe to SiriusXM so they can pay ATT or will I have to buy a higher tier from ATT to get this currently free feed?
The current model says that all ISPs must pass all traffic without the media provider paying for access to their network.

If everything is made the same nothing improves so pay for what works best for you instead of what the gov't tells you what's best for you it's called capitalism if you eliminate competition than no one is gonna offer you a deal to get you to purchase there service or product

What in God’s name are you talking about?

You mean like Comcast and Time Warner did when they decided to exit each other's markets and agreed to not directly compete against each other? Yeah, that was great for consumers and competition. Either we let these companies do whatever they want, or the govt tells them to treat all traffic/web sites equally (net neutrality).

this is 100% wrong.

Net Neutrality prevents ISPs from throttling and blocking content. Without Net Neutrality, Comcast will be able to, for example, slow down Netflix even for people who pay a monthly subscription to that service, and give priority to their own streaming service. They can also block access to any websites that criticize them.

they already do this.

Nobody wants anything for nothing! People merely want their ISP to NOT THROTTLE OR BLOCK ACCESS TO THIRD-PARTY SERVICES AND WEBSITES. ISPs should function as a GATEWAY to the internet. Not a corporate nanny judging which content you are allowed to access! We are not talking about Comcast charging money for a higher speed internet connection. They already do that, and nobody objects to that. But Comcast should not be allowed to block its users from accessing other internet companies, and they should not be able to censor whatever content they want.

There is absolutely NO benefit for consumers. Your internet will be a crappier, more inconvenient, and more expensive. ISPs are the only ones who want this.

Also, a world where your only internet options are either no internet or an internet where your ISP controls what sites you have access to is insanely sad and the worst of all possible worlds.

This comment shows a severe lack of understanding of the issue. Please read up on what's at stake before making knee-jerk "government bad" comments. Repealing Net Neutrality basically allows every ISP to set up their own Chinese Firewall where that corporation chooses what websites its millions of users are allowed access to, and what streaming services will work. Voluntarily ceding that kind of control is extraordinarily stupid.

Freedom of choice on what you purchase is bad ok I guess I'm on dream street

what on earth are you talking about? Net Neutrality has zero to do with what you are free to purchase. It has to do with whether or not your ISP should be allowed to censor websites they don't like, and throttle your internet connection if it's connecting to a service they don't care about.

As a small-time internet entrepreneur myself ( https://www.iScored.info ), i know first hand how the driving force of innovation behind the internet is that all you have to do is build a site or service, and wham, anyone with an internet connection can access it! It's fantastic. And that is thanks to Net Neutrality.

Without Net Neutrality, not only would I have to build my app and advertise it, but I would also have to negotiate with EVERY ISP IN AMERICA in order to get them to allow reasonably quick access to my app, or possibly to get them to allow it through at all. There is no way my project would be remotely feasible without the principles of Net Neutrality.

If you like the Chinese Firewall version of the internet, then you will love the repeal of Net Neutrality, because it allows every ISP to set up their own Chinese Firewall, censoring and blocking and throttling whatever they don't want their customers to have access to.

ISP's are not setting up Chinese Firewalls and blocking you from visiting websites like Facebook or editing content. That's absurd. Fear tactics that they just might one day if the great government doesn't regulate is silly as well.

Ha ha ha, this tiered pricing would start at $79.99+ and go up. If we lose net neutrality, watch all the prices jump and the content you have access to and speeds drop. We will pay more for less.

ISPs have already pledged to make full use of their new power if (when) Net Neutrality is repealed.

And if they aren't going to do that, then why did they pay so much money to have their lackey Ajit Pai installed as head of the FCC, and assign him the sole purpose of repealing it? If they're not going to throttle and block content, then why have they spent so much money fighting for the right to do so?

I love your faith in these corporations to have the American public's desires and interests at heart. I similarly share that faith in my government Personally, I like protections for freedom and equality so both government and corporations can't abuse and control our rights and options.

Why do we need regulation now the internet has gotten this far without it all that's gonna happen is your gonna stagnate it
There using trick terminology (net neutrality) to pull the wool over your eyes

Are you even reading any of the posts about it? What Net Neutrality is has been laid out a dozen times on this thread. All it does is prevent ISPs from censoring or throttling specific internet sites and services for their own gain.

And actually the internet has been running on the principles of Net Neutrality since its inception. It was codified into law in 2014, because ISPs were beginning to violate those principles, and were getting into various throttling wars and blocking access to websites that called them out on it or were otherwise critical of them.

Yes and no. Technically in the sense of 'blocking' outright... you are correct. But where the majority of consumers really are (because ISPs rarely outright block content.. its not worth the backlash) is they think net neutrality is about ensuring they get GOOD PERFORMANCE to everyone equally. And it's not really.

Customers buy bandwidth from their ISP with the assumption that the ISP has good connectivity to 'the internet'. The lay infer that to mean.. if I pay for 75megabit service.. that means I should get 75megabit speeds to anywhere I please at any time... That's not reality. Then, when players like Netflix point fingers at the ISPs for not doing what Netflix wants... or when the ISPs start playing hardball back to peers who do not play nice... bandwidth *IS* a bit part of the problem. Because it's congestion and optimizing network paths that make the difference between the Comcast person getting a good stream from netflix tonight vs yesterday morning.

But because the reason there is conjestion that isn't addressed is because of disagreements between the ISPs and content hosts... and in the past, some of these spats HAVE been about anti-competitive behavior... people make this a net neutrality 'battle front' too.

Your analogy breaks down because your electrical service is a commodity you consume... that you don't care where its generated from.. and your consumption success doesn't matter where it came from as long as the utility has enough to keep the voltage up. The internet is not the same.. the analogy to your postulation would be for 'last mile' bits from your ISP... but you don't care about reaching your ISP great... you really care about reaching some content somewhere else great. That means your experience is not just about the type of service you buy from your ISP... but how everyone on the other side is interacting.

And that's where its more messy.. and most consumers make incorrect leaps.

No it doesn't. What it bans is allowing companies to charge to gain better access over others. Effectively forcing everyone to the same service level... good or bad.

Look who is supporting this and who is against it, that will tell you everything you need to know:

For it - 5 or 6 ISP's (and the people in Govt that do their bidding) - If you Love Comcast, Verizon and AT+T now, just think how much you will love them after this... *sarcasm*

Against it - Everyone else, including most businesses, big and small.

Another way to look it, think of every road in which we drive our vehicles on, and overnight a few private companies can decide what roads are closed, when they are open, which roads they will maintain, which roads will become toll roads and can charge you whatever they want to use them. You wanna take the fast road? That's gonna cost you. This is metaphor for what may happen if net neutrality is repealed. The "open road" potentially is no more - unless you want to pay for it - and even they get to decide what the "open road" is. And if y==happen to be one of these "Government can do no right" type people, just wait till you see what these companies will do - they have one motive, and one motive only, and it's not to be nice and have a level playing field for the good people of the United States with the internet. Follow the Money.

Details matter... and it's more than this.

Which is why mobile providers can pitch ideas like 'streaming video doesn't take up your data plan' on mobile... but would not be able to do that on a cable modem. Can't have that uneven service access (as you can interpret that to mean your punishing some content providers...) while most customers love the fact they need less data.

These kinds of things aren't allowed under a 'everyone is equal' mantra.

Imagine being able to pay for priority access for your gaming traffic to give you 'front of the line' access to ensure congestion doesn't hurt your game... NOPE! Can't do it.

Everyone is fixated on the "Stop the evil empire" fear mongering that they are giving up all kinds of positive things because... they don't pay attention to the details.

Nobody is clamoring for the ability to pay an extra fee so that certain services will be prioritized above others (ESPECIALLY when the cost of that is that the ISP gets to pick and choose what services it feels like throttling or blocking).

Obviously, different consumers pay for different speed tiers of internet service -- that's fine. But beyond that, all people want from their ISP is access to the internet as-is without arbitrary censorship or artificial throttling.

It's important to note that before 2015, there was no "net neutrality." And things seemed to be ok. There's already laws on the books that would prevent, for example, Comcast from trying to block Netflix in favor of their own streaming services. Indeed, companies have been slapped with fines on this in the past.

It's also important to note that although people are saying it's going to hurt the little companies, ask yourself this: If that's true, why are companies like Google, Netflix, and Facebook arguing in FAVOR of this regulation? Could it possibly be to protect their business? Or maybe they're just being altruistic with their shareholder money. You choose.

It's also really curious to me that everyone is up in arms over this regulation, yet nobody cares that Facebook and Google are ALREADY limiting what you can see. It's been proven with research that if something winds up on the 2nd or 3rd page of a Google search, almost nobody looks at it. Why is it ok for Google to block sites it doesn't want you to see (like RT), and nobody is batting an eyelash?

Based on what I'm seeing here, I suspect I might get my first downvotes, which is disappointing, but what can you do?

You are incorrect. The FCC's current plans to repeal Net Neutrality would make what you describe 100% legal.

Sure, it helps Google and those other large corporations. It ALSO helps every small business and every citizen in the USA. Literally the ONLY entities that benefit from repealing Net Neutrality are Comcast, Verizon, and other large ISPs. Please, find one online small business that favors repealing Net Neutrality. I'll wait. Spoiler alert, there are none, because repealing Net Neutrality deeply harms their ability to innovate and compete.

Because Facebook and Google don't control your internet connection, duh. They are merely sites you visit through your internet connection. There are practically an infinite number of websites one can choose from. Switching websites is as easy as typing an address into the URL bar.

But for most people, switching ISPs can be a humongous hassle, extremely expensive, or outright impossible. Many ISPs are chosen at the community or building level. Do you really want to be house shopping and asking the Realtor, "ok, but does this community's internet get Netflix?" "No, this community is on Verizon.net, so you only have access to VerizonFlix, VerizonTube, and VerizonBook. But they're only slightly more expensive, and almost as good!"

Bottom line is your internet connection ITSELF should not be censoring what sites and services you can access.

Pezpunk let me ask you this though and I’m asking this as a fair question and not trying to argue, I just want your honest opinion. Time Warner and all the other cable companies have spent billions of dollars building infrastructure and stuff to bring us the internet. Here comes Netflix and all of these streaming apps now and they offer the consumer a great deal at a fair price so many people are cutting the cord on cable TV and it’s costing the cable companies lots and lots of money in lost revenue.

All of these streaming apps and companies are literally putting them out out of business or at least costing them tons of money and they are using the cable company’s equipment, infrastructure, or whatever you want to call it to do it with. Bandwidth cost money and isn’t free and now because of these streaming services everyone including myself has turned into data hogs which is costing the cable companies a lot of money.

Be honest here, if you were Time Warner, Comcast or whoever, would you or would you not be telling all of these streaming apps like Netflix,........you are not going to use my equipment to run me out of business so I am going to find a way to cut you off. What is your honest thoughts on this? You either got to tell Netflix no we aren’t gonna allow you to do this to us, or you got to tell your customers that you can watch all the Netflix and shit that you want, but after you go over X amount of gigabytes you are going to pay us extra money after that. Agree or disagree?

By the way, I want cheaper TV too and I’m not a fan of these cable companies, but I honestly could understand them taking that stance and I wouldn’t blame them if they did.

Respectfully disagree. For one thing, i don't buy the ISP's sob story that these huge megacorps are just withering and dying. Comcast made $80 billion last year. AT&T $165 billion while complying with Net Neutrality. I think they are going to be okay either way.

Second, those networks were built on R&D developed by the U.S. Government, and the hardware and lines and infrastructure were all built with HUGE government subsidies, because the U.S. Government recognized early on that people having unfettered, high-speed access to the internet was a boon to productivity and commerce and education -- basically a huge public good. The Government fueled and subsidized the growth of ISPs on the premise that they would provide access to the internet and all the myriad services it offers -- these subsidies were not given with the intent that ISPs would build AOL-style walled gardens.

It also goes back to my point about how hard it is to switch ISPs. Most people don't realistically have a choice. For example in my neighborhood, our homeowners fees pay for our internet. You can't switch ISPs. To be locked into one ISP is not ideal, but it's endurable, as long as all ISPs access the same internet. Reality is that Net Neutrality is a necessary regulation partly because regional monopolies are so common among ISPs -- normally, conservatives prefer for the consumer to "vote with their dollars" to affect change in a corporations behavior, but with a regional monopoly, the consumer is robbed of that ability.

By the way, i absolutely 100% wholeheartedly reject your earlier assertion that it's a realistic choice to go without an internet connection entirely. We are not the Amish. This is the 21st century. It *IS* a necessity. Pretending that the best option is giving consumers a choice between shitty internet and no internet is a catastrophically stupid step backwards.

You can reject it all you want but here’s the facts, if I lose my job I will be dropping my cable and internet immediately because those will be luxuries that I will not be able to afford. Notice I said luxuries and not necessities. I may not like it, but I can live without the internet.

Ok back on topic, if the government did in fact subsidize and help pay for the internet infrastructure then I guess I can see them having some control over it, but if they didn’t, I think they should keep their noses out of it.

If i lost my internet connection, i would lose my job. Not to mention pretty much everyone's shopping, appointment calendar, and social and family lives are managed over the internet in some fashion. This is the 21st century. We are a first world nation. We are supposed to be world leaders on technology. And you want to argue that the best way forward is to force a choice on its citizens between shitty internet or no internet? It's a huge step backwards.

N I’m not trying to argue anything at all, I’m just saying that I personally do not “need” the internet. I do however believe in capitalism though and I think it’s ok for say these cable companies to be allowed to protect their investment. If the government however did subsidize the infrastructure as you claim, then I can see where they would have some say in the matter.

well the cable company is a bunch of lying bastards (spectrum) and already get my money. I don't pay for their service so they can tell me what I can and can't watch or do with my service. They get their money from me. So it's their job to STFU and let me do what I want from that point on and make sure i'm able to do it.

I’m not a fan of them either NEO believe me lol. I hate dealing with them, especially now that Spectrum bought out Time Warner. I’m just trying to look at the big picture is all. I like to look at things from all angles before I pick a side or make a decision on something. I’m certainly not taking their side because I feel ripped off by them just like you do.