The FCC voted to kill Net Neutrality today.

Robbie said:

 

For all the "let's regulate this like utilities" arguments: I can buy power from many different suppliers and my electric company charges separately to deliver it to my house. There are also plans available where I pay different amounts for power at different times of day or different times of year. Same electrons, different price when coming from different places at different times. I have way more choice than I need. Why is there not electron neutrality? I can choose that plan if I like, or I can choose a different plan if a different one fits my needs better. I agree that they don't exactly make this easy knowledge, but the choices are out there for smart consumers.

 

You're one of the lucky ones then. This is not the case for millions of Americans. I have 1 option for electricity. I have 1 option for natural gas. I have the option of a DSL internet service, or expensive and inconsistent satellite internet. Cable TV is not offered where I live, so bundles from Comcast or ATT don't apply.

Its fine to suggest that repealing net neutrality might not cause society to collapse, but I'd counter that by suggesting that it cannot do anything to make consumer's experiences better either. Therefore, the chance of it negatively impacting consumers seems quite a bit higher than the chance that it might benefit them. The only ones that benefit are large telecom companies.

ProDarwin said:

I'd have loved to show Time Warner how much I dislike their service by switching to another internet provider, but I simply don't have that option.

Well, I think many people feel the same way - maybe there is a market there...

However, this shows you may have 4-6 options for wired broadband internet in your area (I just guessed on the zip code). https://www.highspeedinternet.com/nc/winston-salem?zip=27104

For broadband internet (25down, 3up or more), only 22% of the country has more than one option.

In reply to STM317 :

Where do you live? Type your zip into the link in my prior post to see all the places you can buy internet from. I agree that there are probably some places that have pathetically short lists...

However, you may not be aware of all the places you can buy power from. ComEd is the delivery utility here in my area, but ComEd buys power from like 12 different companies. I'd be shocked (get it?) if your electric utility was not the same. You may have to call them or do some digging to find them, but they are out there.

ProDarwin said:

For broadband internet (25down, 3up or more), only 22% of the country has more than one option.

 

 

 

22% of the AREA of the country. Actually, not even that. 22% of the 'census blocks'. There is no data on the relative population of those census blocks (in this graph). 22% could well cover 99.85% of americans for all we know.

Robbie said:

ProDarwin said:

I'd have loved to show Time Warner how much I dislike their service by switching to another internet provider, but I simply don't have that option.

Well, I think many people feel the same way - maybe there is a market there...

However, this shows you may have 4-6 options for wired broadband internet in your area (I just guessed on the zip code). https://www.highspeedinternet.com/nc/winston-salem?zip=27104

 

Pretty typical.  Many providers will say they have service available, but when you inquire they don't. Downtown there are a couple of options, but like many cities, if you aren't in the center, you don't get it.  I'm 6 miles from city center.  Spectrum(formerly TWC) is at my house.  If you put my address into AT&T or Windstream, it isn't available.  Hughes is Satellite.

22% of the AREA of the country. Actually, not even that. 22% of the 'census blocks'. There is no data on the relative population of those census blocks (in this graph). 22% could well cover 99.85% of americans for all we know.

Oops.  Yes, fair point.

This says 50 million homes.  So not sure how many Americans that is, but I imagine its still a healthy chunk.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/

In reply to Robbie :

I know exactly how many power options I have. We had to pay $10k to bring the power to our property 6 months after they removed the poles delivering the power to our property because there was no one using it. The only other option in the county was the local REMC who refused to come the 1/2 mile south to our property. That was 13.5 years ago. I'm still pissed. They wanted us to pay $21k to put in 7 poles and to go less than a half mile. I talked them down to "only 10k". 

Same with phone or internet service. One option. You can type in my zip code and get several options, but they don't apply to where I actually live. Zip codes denote towns (more specifically a post office). Millions of people have zip codes of towns they cannot get any services from. 46052 or 46077 are the zipcodes associated with my area. I can get none of the options from 46077. 

In reply to Robbie :

Like ProDarwin said, just because a service is offered somewhere in my zip doesn't mean that I can get it at my house. My zip code has a population of roughly 25,000 people. There's a town at the center of it. If you live in town, you have multiple options. Where  I live, you have 1 DSL option, or satellite.

As for electricity, I have 1 option. My neighbor 200 yards away has only one option too, but their option is a local electrical co-op, while mine is a larger utility company. They just built their house and would've preferred the larger utility that I have, but it wasn't an option for them. The co-op may be buying power from the large utility, or vice versa. It doesn't really matter what happens behind the scenes if you only have one company willing to provide the power to your house.

None of this discussion really answers how this new change to net neutrality might benefit consumers in any way. It's pretty clear that it can benefit large telecom corporations, but they only benefit when consumers pay more, or they charge websites more(which will then be passed to consumers).

In reply to Bobcougarzillameister :

Unrelated, but I used to live in 46077. We were basically neighbors!

I just did all this shopping 5 months ago for my new house.  In my neighborhood in Harrisburg PA, I have three options because I'm lucky.

Fios has spotty coverage in Harrisburg (including me)
Comcast has full coverage
And there was a third little guy that offered me 3down/1up for $99/mo. (ridiculous, and they had a 2-star service rating and no customer service phone number)

I took the Fios 50down/50up for $39.99 (46.99 after one year).  My only other option was Comcast that was 25d/10u for $49.99 and their prices go up to almost $70 after the first year.

The internet worked fine 3 years ago and it will work fine going forward.  This was a battle with netflix, google, twitter and facebook on one side and the ISPs on the other.  Nothing much to do with us end users. Not a big deal. 

In reply to STM317 :

how long ago? We moved to Boone County in 2004

T.J. said:

The internet worked fine 3 years ago and it will work fine going forward.  This was a battle with netflix, google, twitter and facebook on one side and the ISPs on the other.  Nothing much to do with us end users. Not a big deal. 

It didn't work fine for everyone 3 years ago as pointed out on the previous page, and you can expect more of those problems in the future now.

It has everything to do with us end users - obviously if you use any of those services (I only use Google among those), but also if you don't - you might find that you have to pay more to use other services that can't afford to make deals with ISPs, or possibly that they've simply been blocked if those other services compete with those the ISP is selling.

Look at it this way:

Comcast owns Hulu, so if you have them as an ISP, they’d prefer you to use their services, so they can charge you to use Netflix or Amazon Prime over and above what the services charge.  Or they could just block the site altogether.  If you don’t have Comcast as an ISP, then they could charge more to access their products and services or throttle the bandwidth to those outside of their user base.

Also, do you currently pay for long distance for a phone?  Or did you drop that when you discovered it’s easier and cheaper to use a VOIP solution?  Guess what, those free or cheap VOIP services could change or go away.

if you think the online streaming services are confusing, try figuring it out once the ISPs get into it.

In reply to Robbie :

FYI Strict Title II, not what the ISPs got when they were reclassified in 2015, would have mandated line sharing under the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Since it wasn't strict Title II the line sharing was never enforced/on the table and each ISP wishing to compete in a space must run its own very expensive last mile. Line sharing is what power companies do because they are forced to by regulating authorities same with phone service. 

So no it doesn't operate like the power company nor can it without the agreement of the monopoly ISP who owns the lines. And why would they do that? Monopolies make a lot of money.

What annoys me the most about this is that service providers got away light the first time (alteration to Title I), sued (because they wanted to continue down the path away from net neutrality) resulting in the courts telling the FCC if they wanted NN service providers would have to be reclassified service as Title II (effectively putting stricter rules put in place) yet still managed to get away without being classed as a utility which would have avoided this situation all together.

Now they are in theory getting out from under those rules in yet another bid to double dip every bit that crosses their networks. They had a pretty sweet deal under Title I with Tom Wheeler but Verizon poisoned the well and we ended up here with some half measures.

Next time around they won't be so lucky. That is of course unless Congress passes legislation addressing the issue which something like 95% of them aren't qualified to speak about much less legislate.

I dunno. A coworker spends set up time listening to crap music on his phone yet won't download the parking app that allows him to stay inside at work instead of going out to his car to feed the meter during his shift. Maybe if we could just make the internet more expensive during work hours life would be better. Meh. I should have stayed out of this thread. Bah humbug.

Robbie said:

GameboyRMH said:

restricted only by the goodness of their hearts.

I don't mean to harp my point in this thread, but they are actually mainly restricted by their customers, just like any other corporation.

For all the "let's regulate this like utilities" arguments: I can buy power from many different suppliers and my electric company charges separately to deliver it to my house. There are also plans available where I pay different amounts for power at different times of day or different times of year. Same electrons, different price when coming from different places at different times. I have way more choice than I need. Why is there not electron neutrality? I can choose that plan if I like, or I can choose a different plan if a different one fits my needs better. I agree that they don't exactly make this easy knowledge, but the choices are out there for smart consumers.

I'm also not arguing that we should not have net neutrality, but rather that I'm not sure life without it is the end of the free world and the beginning of the decent into chaos.

 

That's a good analogy for an example, but it's actually a good example of why we need some form of net neutrality, not the opposite. In that example, the electric company could charge more for you buying electrons for them to deliver from anyone who isn't their "preferred" supplier. The different plans are like buying different bandwith amounts. And it's not just that they "could", it's a known proven, well documented fact that many of them have tried to do just that, and have directly said they will seek to do so again.

Also, with the effective Monopoly of most cable companies delivering internet access, it's not really a choice like you're saying it is, when the option is to buy from them or go without societally realistic internet access. Sure, you could have mobile based access only, but they do the same things as the cable isp's. To continue the electric analogy, it's like choosing from direct hookup to the power grid, or only living off solar. 

The only argument I've heard in favor of a system other than classifying isp's under title II that made some sense, is what is done to handle traffic for specific health and infrastructure related traffic. An effective network of self driving cars communicating with each other is going to require a lot of bandwith, and with the vehicles occupants potentially at risk, probably needs a certain minimum set aside at the expense of Netflix resolution. I actually heard it from one of the FCC commissioners when I was watch/listening to the live stream of the ruling. We should be able to come up with regulations and systems that make reasonable compromises.

Speaking of watching the ruling, I couldn't believe Pai brought up how he "used the internet to FaceTime" this week after the BS that apple pulled with blocking it when Apple first enabled it to work over cell, not just wifi. 

Edit: I see I was a little late responding. Oh well, bears repeating/reinforcing.

NEALSMO said:

Robbie said:

Last dying gasps of the cable giants. They see the future, and are trying to prevent it, but can't. Oil will be along shortly.

You still have the power, simply pay the ISP that treats you like a human.

Assuming you have the option.  Most people have 1, maybe 2 options for providers.

Because of shady deals between major ISPs and metropolitan areas where they are allowed to have a monopoly.

Basically the exact opposite of a free market.

I am seriously thinking of getting a VPN, now.

Ransom said:At this point, minus a couple people on this thread who've said they can do without the Internet, most of us need the Internet for most of our daily professional and personal lives.

EVERYBODY needs the 'net, directly or indirectly.

When you use an ATM, the bank info is transmitted online.

When you come to my shop to have your car worked on, or buy parts from the racing-engine side of our business, even if you're paying with cash and in person, all of our inventorying, point of sale, and service manuals are cloud-based.  When we went from doing everything in house to cloud based, we went about two days before getting the biggest pipe we could get.  Speed is good    Point is, 'net is a business expense that affects the bottom line, and therefore affects how much we need to charge for goods and services.

That's just us.  Everyone else who runs a business relies on the internet nowadays in some form or another.  The only way a person can claim to not be affected is if they live in a cabin in the woods, using no money and trading with nobody, surviving by eating woodland creatures and making clothes from their hides, with tools hewn from wood and rock.

T.J. said:

The internet worked fine 3 years ago and it will work fine going forward.  This was a battle with netflix, google, twitter and facebook on one side and the ISPs on the other.  Nothing much to do with us end users. Not a big deal. 

Three years ago, net neutrality was the rule.  Thirty years ago, net neutrality was the rule.  It has always been the rule.  The Internet was specifically designed that all traffic gets equal consideration, because its original purpose was as a wholly decentralized system that was expected to still function 100% even if various nodes found themselves to suddenly be 10000 degrees F with a 100% chance of radioactivity.

Now, to use the tired road analogy, without neutrality, you might find that the only way to get from Detroit to Chicago is on Ford-owned roads, but they don't allow Chevys to drive on them.

Knurled. said:

I am seriously thinking of getting a VPN, now.

That won't help, ISPs know that VPNs are a way of doing end-runs around NN violations, so they are the first to be put into the leper's colony along with bittorrent, to suffer the heaviest throttling or even blocking.

Unfortunately for many the primary use for a VPN is a [more] secure connection to their workpace network.

ProDarwin said:

Unfortunately for many the primary use for a VPN is a [more] secure connection to their workpace network.

This. This could remove my ability to work from home. Meaning more time in the office and less at home. 

So, it turns out that the real Jackhole is Jimmy Kimmel.
 

Rolling the regulatory burden back one year.