Why are Republicans against Net Neutrality?

[Lee978]

This is getting boring, Hog-train. Of course we haven't seen things like price controls, the FCC has never had the authority (until now) to enforce such rules even if they wanted to. And im not protecting big cable as much as i am thoroughly dismantling your faith-based NN position. Now clearly I've struck a nerve since you're resorting to name calling instead of actually refuting anything i said.

 

[Hog-train]

This is getting boring, Hog-train. Of course we haven't seen things like price controls, the FCC has never had the authority (until now) to enforce such rules even if they wanted to. And im not protecting big cable as much as i am thoroughly dismantling your faith-based NN position. Now clearly I've struck a nerve since you're resorting to name calling instead of actually refuting anything i said.

Yet you still can't name anything specific that will have a negative impact on the consumers. I've asked multiple times.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

How are there people who are defending the monopolies who have given us shitty service at exorbitant prices.

There are always these morons lingering in topics like this.

 

[djacobox372]

Yet you still can't name anything specific that will have a negative impact on the consumers. I've asked multiple times.

Playing devils advocate... the FCC has censored the public airways and fined people like Howard Stern because they deemed him "vulgar."

Imagine if they applied that same sort of regulation to the internet?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Playing devils advocate... the FCC has censored the public airways and fined people like Howard Stern because they deemed him "vulgar."

Imagine if they applied that same sort of regulation to the internet?

Or we could let the corporate oligarchs keep control of their monopoly and continue to give us the worst service for industrialized nations at our extremely high costs.

 

[Lee978]

Playing devils advocate... the FCC has censored the public airways and fined people like Howard Stern because they deemed him "vulgar."

Imagine if they applied that same sort of regulation to the internet?

The problem is he can't imagine it. Tom Wheeler said he isn't going to do those sort of things so there is no reason to worry about it.

 

[UpaLoompa]

The problem is he can't imagine it. Tom Wheeler said he isn't going to do those sort of things so there is no reason to worry about it.

The problem is that you and others are ignoring what companies like Verizon have done based on concern about what others may do. While it isn't unreasonable to be concerned about the potential for government overreach your doing so while pretending that there's no problems on the other side of the relationship.


Elsewhere I compared the rationale being employed to people opposed to Obama because he may try to limit gun ownership choosing to vote for Romney who actually had limited gun ownership.

 

[Dolomite]

compared the rationale being employed to people opposed to Obama because he may try to limit gun ownership

Try? :icon_chee

23 executive actions and three POTUS memorandum later, I highly doubt he'll stop working 'with or without Congress' in pursuing more gun control all the way past 2016.

And Mittens absolutely fucked up Mass. gun laws so bad - they will never get unfucked.

I apologize that this post contains nothing pertinent to the 'FCC taking over 4chan' argument.

 

[Hog-train]

The problem is he can't imagine it. Tom Wheeler said he isn't going to do those sort of things so there is no reason to worry about it.

So name something. It can't be that hard since you're so adamant.

 

[Lee978]

The problem is that you and others are ignoring what companies like Verizon have done based on concern about what others may do. While it isn't unreasonable to be concerned about the potential for government overreach your doing so while pretending that there's no problems on the other side of the relationship.


Elsewhere I compared the rationale being employed to people opposed to Obama because he may try to limit gun ownership choosing to vote for Romney who actually had limited gun ownership.

If that's the impression I'm giving off then it's probably because I've had to spend the majority of my time correcting people who rather stick to liberal talking points as oppose to the facts. That being said, I haven't once defended the actions of those ISPs who were accused of discrimination and anti-competitive practices. Moreover, I've argued that it isn't even clear that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem in the industry (and I've provided evidence to back this up). The impetus behind NN isn't that we have a discrimination problem, it's that consumers want to ENSURE we never have one.

......Most consumers haven't had a problem viewing whatever they want online; few instances have arisen of an Internet provider blocking or slowing services.

Rather, the FCC rules are designed to prevent potential future harms and they could shape how Americans access and use the Internet years from now.......

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654

That's the whole idea behind reclassification and title 2. The title 2 regulatory framework is more broad than title 1 and it also give the FCC more authority over how an ISP can conduct business therefore ensuring a "free and open" internet.

But anyways, my overarching concern is consumer satisfaction. The only reason it may not appear that way is because I don't just assume government is omniscient.

 

[Hog-train]

If that's the impression I'm giving off then it's probably because I've had to spend the majority of my time correcting people who rather stick to liberal talking points as oppose to the facts. .

Really? Because it seems like you are the one sticking to talking points. Speaking in generalities like "government overreach."

Name something specific that was government overreach in this new set of rules. No generalities with no substance.

I've argued that it isn't even clear that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem in the industry (and I've provided evidence to back this up). The impetus behind NN isn't that we have a discrimination problem, it's that consumers want to ENSURE we never have one. .

But there is a clear history. I can show you a history of the ISP's trying to skirt the rules repeatedly. You'll probably choose to conveniently ignore it anyway.

First we have the most recent Comcast-Netflix negotiations where they deliberately slowed Netflix traffic to a crawl. Blackmail anyone?

IN 2004, the REPUBLICAN Chair of the FCC, Michael Powell, laid out four principles of Internet Freedom in Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry.

1. Consumers should be able to access content of their choice
2. Run applications of their choice
3. Freely attach devices
4. Obtain good information on the terms of their service plans - no tricking consumers with small print BS.

The ISPs did not challenge these principles directly, but insisted that they did not need to be codified into law because a combination of carrier self-interest and competitive pressures. Yea right

In 2005, we got a real-life example when Madison River, a telecom carrier, blocked an IP Voiceover app offered by a third party because it wanted to offer its own VoIP service. The FCC forced Madison River to back down.

In 2008, Comcast was caught deliberately slowing down P2P connections. The FCC entered an order for them to stop.

Comcast went to court and the FCC lost on the grounds that it lacked the necessary statutory authority under Title 1.

Court Rules for Comcast in FCC Case

In 2010, The FCC laid out new rules in a formal order.

They stipulated:

1. Transparency in contract terms - again no small print BS to trick consumers
2. No unreasonable blocking of lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices
3. No unreasonable discrimination.

And AGAIN, it lost in court. This time to Verizon in January of 2014. For the same exact reason.

It lacked the necessary statutory authority under Title 1.

Source. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/%24file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

But in the ruling, the judge suggested the FCC would only have the authority under Title 2.

That is why the FCC was FORCED by Verizon's lawsuit to classify under Title 2.

If Verizon and the other ISP's simply agreed to the rules (which were quite reasonable), NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

But they wanted their cake and eat it too... and they lost. So get over it.

 

[Darkballs]

^^^^^


Well said and a good summary of how we got to where we are today.

 

[Lee978]

Really? Because it seems like you are the one sticking to talking points. Speaking in generalities like "government overreach."

Name something specific that was government overreach in this new set of rules. No generalities with no substance.

Dude you're the only person in this thread who disagrees with the fact that Title 2 regulation is stricter than the current framework so I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

But there is a clear history. I can show you a history of the ISP's trying to skirt the rules repeatedly. You'll probably choose to conveniently ignore it anyway.

First we have the most recent Comcast-Netflix negotiations where they deliberately slowed Netflix traffic to a crawl. Blackmail anyone?

IN 2004, the REPUBLICAN Chair of the FCC, Michael Powell, laid out four principles of Internet Freedom in Preserving Internet Freedom: Guiding Principles for the Industry.

1. Consumers should be able to access content of their choice
2. Run applications of their choice
3. Freely attach devices
4. Obtain good information on the terms of their service plans - no tricking consumers with small print BS.

The ISPs did not challenge these principles directly, but insisted that they did not need to be codified into law because a combination of carrier self-interest and competitive pressures. Yea right

In 2005, we got a real-life example when Madison River, a telecom carrier, blocked an IP Voiceover app offered by a third party because it wanted to offer its own VoIP service. The FCC forced Madison River to back down.

In 2008, Comcast was caught deliberately slowing down P2P connections. The FCC entered an order for them to stop.

Comcast went to court and the FCC lost on the grounds that it lacked the necessary statutory authority under Title 1.

Court Rules for Comcast in FCC Case

In 2010, The FCC laid out new rules in a formal order.

They stipulated:

1. Transparency in contract terms - again no small print BS to trick consumers
2. No unreasonable blocking of lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices
3. No unreasonable discrimination.

And AGAIN, it lost in court. This time to Verizon in January of 2014. For the same exact reason.

It lacked the necessary statutory authority under Title 1.

Source. http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/3AF8B4D938CDEEA685257C6000532062/%24file/11-1355-1474943.pdf

But in the ruling, the judge suggested the FCC would only have the authority under Title 2.

That is why the FCC was FORCED by Verizon's lawsuit to classify under Title 2.

If Verizon and the other ISP's simply agreed to the rules (which were quite reasonable), NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

But they wanted their cake and eat it too... and they lost. So get over it.

Regarding the whole "Comcast intentionally slowed down Netflix traffic" assertion:

New research from computer scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis shows that, as its traffic increased in the last two years, Netflix forced it through clogged delivery routes, when less congested channels were available.

The scientists concluded the data “strongly suggest that the correct response to growing congestion” was for Netflix to use different connections for its traffic, not for Comcast to add capacity. This corroborates Comcast’s argument that “Netflix has not been honest.”

Evidence also suggests that, at the same time Netflix allowed congestion to increase until it affected performance, Netflix published misleading data casting the blame on Comcast.

This one-two punch prompted Netflix subscribers to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to adopt policies supposedly designed to reduce congestion but that were actually aimed at lowering Netflix’s costs of doing business. In other words, Netflix first gamed the network, and then the policymakers themselves.

Here’s how Netflix did it. In June 2012, Netflix launched a “content delivery network” or “CDN” service to stream video to Internet providers. CDNs are basically middlemen that specialize in carrying large volumes of traffic across the backbone of the Internet. Netflix said it hoped to shift most of its traffic from its existing routes to its new CDN.

But Netflix wasn’t telling the whole story. It recently admitted that in early 2012 it also began shifting its traffic onto what are called “settlement free” routes for delivery to Comcast’s network. These “settlement free” routes were cheaper for Netflix, but lacked flexibility and capacity. Netflix knew this decision, entirely within its own control, was degrading its own subscribers’ service. Predictably, the settlement-free routes Netflix chose were overwhelmed by Netflix’s enormous streaming volume.

According to Comcast and the MIT and CAIDA scientists, Netflix could have eliminated the congestion overnight by shifting traffic to uncongested routes on which Comcast had capacity. This would have solved the service problem, but would have cost Netflix some of the profits it was saving by avoiding commercial CDNs.

Instead of solving the problem, Netflix decided to spin it. Netflix published “ISP speed rankings” to provide “monthly insight into which ISPs deliver the best Netflix experience.” But these rankings were skewed to shift blame off Netflix’s own choices and onto ISPs. In August 2013, for example, Netflix published a regional speed ranking purporting to show average speeds for Netflix on Boston’s RCN network outperformed Comcast and other ISPs as much as 70 percent. Notably, Netflix didn’t mention that it directly connected its CDN to RCN in Boston and avoided the settlement-free routes it used with Comcast.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

Now, last time i checked, 3 instances of abuse doesn't constitute a "problem," at least not in this world. But maybe you don't know what "problem" means in this context. Judging from this thread though, I wouldn't put it past you.

 

[Lee978]

^^^^^


Well said and a good summary of how we got to where we are today.

You do realize that "where we are today" is significantly better than where we were just 6 years ago right? If what Hog-train was asserting where the norm (which it absolutely isn't) then we would have a completely different environment.

 

[Lee978]

Here is the Center for Boundless Innovation in Technology on the whole "Comcast intentionally slowed down Netflix traffic:"

A stunning revelation is buried in a lengthy Netflix filing at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Netflix used its subscribers as pawns in a Machiavellian game of regulatory chess designed to win favorable Internet regulations.

The filing reveals that Netflix knowingly slowed down its video streaming service with the intention of blaming Internet service providers (ISPs). Specifically, Netflix used its relationships with Internet ‘backbone’ providers (e.g., Level 3, Cogent) to deliberately congest their peering links with ISPs, and at the same time, started publishing ‘ISP speed rankings’ to make it appear that ISPs were causing the congestion. It appears that Netflix cynically held its subscribers hostage to reduced service quality in order to pressure the FCC into adopting favorable Internet regulations that would permanently lower Netflix’s costs of doing business.

Netflix’s plan to frame ISPs for sabotaging its service has been surprisingly successful so far. Some subscribers have blamed their ISPs for the service disruptions Netflix itself caused, which prompted the FCC to open an investigation of the Internet backbone market. Now all Netflix needs is for the FCC to adopt new regulations.

http://cbit.org/blog/2014/09/netfli...e-to-gain-favorable-fcc-internet-regulations/

If that's not enough, here is the actual link to the filing itself. Knock yourselves out.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/v...g94rTfGN0fL!809722108!156529071?id=7521825167

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

Best explanation of Net Neutrality.

[YT]Un-9_K-aNaE[/YT]

 

[Dolomite]

"Shredding the 3 x 5 card of conventional opinion", eh? Didn't listen - Lulz!

Anyway - has anyone pointed out that Comcast-Warner will take in about $100B a year running 3/4 of our internet - and that the highest fine the FCC has ever been allowed to issue is $35Mil?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

"Shredding the 3 x 5 card of conventional opinion", eh? Didn't listen - Lulz!

Anyway - has anyone pointed out that Comcast-Warner will take in about $100B a year running 3/4 of our internet - and that the highest fine the FCC has ever been allowed to issue is $35Mil?

And they will continue to give us horrible service.

 

[Hog-train]

Regarding the whole "Comcast intentionally slowed down Netflix traffic" assertion:

Yea that's just one article that refutes the bandwidth throttle claim. How about all the other articles saying the opposite?

How about Cogent CEO Dave Schaeffer, whose company is one of the largest providers of internet backbone?

Cogent CEO: Comcast Purposefully Slowed Down Netflix Traffic.

Cogent Communications CEO Dave Schaeffer made the comments at a congressional hearing about Comcast's proposed $45 billion takeover of Time Warner Cable on Thursday.

Schaeffer said that after Cogent began delivering Netflix's traffic in mid-2012, its relationship with Comcast worsened and Comcast began to stop increasing the capacity of its hardware to accommodate the increase in traffic.

He said Netflix was forced to cut a direct deal with Comcast to improve streaming to customers, which began to be plagued by buffering, delays and pixelated pictures.

Now, last time i checked, 3 instances of abuse doesn't constitute a "problem," at least not in this world. But maybe you don't know what "problem" means in this context. Judging from this thread though, I wouldn't put it past you.

Now your minimizing it. You said "it isn't even clear that discrimination and anti-competitive practices are a problem in the industry."

I just gave you 3 concrete examples with the court documents to back it up.

The point is: The ISP's CREATED the problem in the first place by not agreeing to abide by "no paid prioritization".

The ISP's TOOK THE FCC to court so they could prioritize traffic.

 

[MyOwnSummer12]

"Shredding the 3 x 5 card of conventional opinion", eh? Didn't listen - Lulz!

Anyway - has anyone pointed out that Comcast-Warner will take in about $100B a year running 3/4 of our internet - and that the highest fine the FCC has ever been allowed to issue is $35Mil?

Ignorance goes hand in hand with progressivism. Not surprised.