# If we're going to adopt net neutrality rules, might as well and save Blackberry while we're at it! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593 "2015-01-22T17:01:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/21 "2015-01-22T22:34:06Z")
So many conflicting statements in your response. “There’s no competition, but there is, it’s Google. The existing ISP’s will fight tooth and nail to not let anyone else in,”. Clearly there is competition. A monopoly is not defined as an industry where only large companies compete. As stated above 88% of Americans have access to two or more ISPs offering broadband. It is not in the best interest of Verizon to willy nilly block the kid sending his application to McDonalds. But if Verizon believes it has pricing leverage with one of its customers that it’s willing to risk losing a block of business, that’s their choice. There are other companies to fill the gap, if they fail. Contrary to what many of you believe equal pricing and fair treatment does not need to be regulated. ---
**Author:** ![SirRay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@SirRay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirRay)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/22 "2015-01-22T22:47:52Z")
I believe what Omar is complaining about is the federal government getting involved in the internet now via net neutrality rules, when it had no role before. [Except maybe for developing it…](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET#Creation) (end snark…) ---
**Author:** ![DoggyDunnit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@DoggyDunnit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoggyDunnit)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/23 "2015-01-22T23:03:33Z")
To add another sub-point to my earlier post: NN also ensures that ISPs cannot slow down the websites of people, companies, organizations, et cetera that they do not like (hindering their ability to get their messages out effectively). A good example is my main endeavor–an organization that is openly Socialist in nature. With NN, if, say, Verizon doesn’t like my organization’s site, tough cookies for them–they have to let my org’s site load just as fast as NewsMax or Drudge. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/24 "2015-01-22T23:31:22Z")
Where I live, my choices for broadband are Comcast and Verizon FIOS. Both of them offer phone service, but I choose to use Vonage. If both decide to block Vonage (or slow it down so that it becomes unusable), where do I go? They both have reason to do so, since it competes with their own phone service. That’s what Net Neutrality is about. It’s not about nationalizing ISPs lines, it’s not about forcing pricing levels on ISP. **Omar** – from your arguments here, it’s not even clear you understand what NN is. Youtube arose from nothing because they had equal access to everyone’s broadband. If Verizon and Comcast decide to extort money from them, Google can afford it. But the next Youtube won’t even be able to get off the ground. I ask again – is this just an anti-NN rant, or do you think that Chen was sensible in his analogy? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/25 "2015-01-23T00:44:32Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > 70% of the US population has access to two or more ISPs with speeds of **10Mbps** or greater Sorry, but this discussion is about _broadband_ internet. Your argument is equivalent to denying that 19th-century robber barons had rail monopolies because customers had the option of dragging their goods on sledges instead. > [@Omar\_Little](#): > > As stated above 88% of Americans have access to two or more ISPs offering broadband. Repeating nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/26 "2015-01-23T01:00:33Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Where in the commercial code does it say that all businesses must charge the same amount to every customer? Are attorney’s required to charge all clients the same hourly billing rate? Do manufacturers of commodities charge all of their customers the same rate regardless of volume taken or longevity of the supplier customer relationship? > > The answer to all of those questions is “no”. So why should ISP’s be subject to such price regulation when other industries are not? Here’s where I think you’re going awry… Let’s start by defining some terms. I’m calling the user the person who is consuming content from a site like YouTube. I’m calling the provider the person who has a web server hosting content like YouTube is. (The content provider, if that helps). I’m calling the ISP (Internet Service Provider) the company that provides the connection used by these two entities. Now, in the system we have right now, user has a contract with their ISP to pay a monthly rate (or whatever they agree to) for access to Internet service. ISP can charge use whatever it likes to, market forces, monopolies, local regulation, etc. all taken into account. Likewise, provider needs Internet service for its own servers so that they can connect to the Internet, and provider has a contract with ISP that is also negotiated at a price. It’s important to understand that ISP might been different for the user and the provider. In fact, the provider might not even be on the same continent as the user. Because there might be more than one ISP involved, there’s a point at which Internet traffic moves from one ISP to another. I’m not going to into any more technical detail there. Net neutrality says that the user’s ISP must provide all content to the user at the same speed; the user’s ISP has a contract with the user and if they want to make more money, they need to go talk to the user. Likewise, provider’s ISP can only charge the provider. What companies like Comcast are trying to do is interrupt this. They want to say “Why should provider’s ISP get all the money from the provider? What if we threaten to throttle user’s bandwidth to the provider in an attempt to force provider to pay us as well as their own ISP?” If this happens, the provider (which, again, is already paying its own ISP, and may be in an entirely different country) is essentially paying both their own ISP and the user’s ISP. To some extent, I suppose I could live with this. I mean, we have cable stations that are paid for both by subscriber fees and by advertising and some cable stations that are purely paid for by the subscribers. If that was the only issue, I’d still prefer net neutrality but could live with it. The reason I support net neutrality so strongly is that Comcast isn’t just an ISP. Comcast also sells cable TV and telephone. Well, there are Internet alternatives to both TV and telephone. Without net neutrality, Comcast is able to stifle companies like NetFlix and Vonage, making them effectively unusable by throttling bandwidth. Then NetFlix and Vonage have to pay Comcast to get higher bandwidth… which means the end users are now indirectly paying twice for the same service. All of the major ISPs have these additional services. AOL-Time-Warner goes even further than many because they even produce some of the creative content shown on TV! So, as I see it, if we do not maintain net neutrality, then we have to make sure that ISPs do nothing but provide Internet service. No TV, no phones, no video on demand, no entertainment branch, no sports teams. I could live with a non-neutral net in that environment, because the ISPs are just trying to make money on their Internet service. In the current environment, though, these companies would even be willing to lose money on their Internet services if it boosted cable subscriptions, music purchases, sorts viewers, etc. Internet service becomes nothing more than a way to promote their side interests. Arguing that ISPs don’t have a true monopoly for 88% of Americans still misses the point, in my mind. All ISPs have these side interests. Where I live, for example, I have three basic options: Comcast, Verizon (ISP interests sold to Frontier) and Clearwire (now Sprint). All of these offer phone services. Two of them do cell phones. Comcast does cable TV directly and Frontier indirectly (through Dish, if memory serves). So… when you look at a content provider like Vonage or NetFlix, there is a monopoly here of interests that would quite happily crush competing phone and TV services. Thus, I return to my point: they either need to divest the ISP functions from the rest of the company, or they need to make the Internet service content-neutral. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/27 "2015-01-23T01:05:53Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Sorry, but this discussion is about _broadband_ internet. Your argument is equivalent to denying that 19th-century robber barons had rail monopolies because customers had the option of dragging their goods on sledges instead. Y’know, I like HSI as much as anyone, but pretending that it doesn’t count if it’s not absolutely ridiculous isn’t really good argument. That’s a good enough connection for two or three separate streaming videos at pretty good resolution. Maybe not Blue-Ray quality, but I think you need to stop and pause before comparing a lack of high-def video to hauling a wheelbarrow. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/28 "2015-01-23T02:04:19Z")
> [@dracoi](#): > > …All of the major ISPs have these additional services. AOL-Time-Warner goes even further than many because they even produce some of the creative content shown on TV! > … Excellent summary and the definition of terms help keep this debate on point. You probably know this, but Comcast owns NBC-Universal, so it also produces tons of content, maybe more than AOL-Time-Warner. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/29 "2015-01-23T02:19:32Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Getting Netflix is not a right. Getting [netflix.com](http://netflix.com) SHOULD be a right just like getting foxnews. com, cnn. com, porn. com, and stormfront. com should be a right. One should be able to go to any internet address they choose to without any artificial, profit-based blockades being put in one’s way. That is net neutrality. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/30 "2015-01-23T03:01:28Z")
And of course Microsoft would also get the same apps and treatment Blackberry does given the low market share of Windows Phones. ---
**Author:** ![dzeiger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@dzeiger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzeiger)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/31 "2015-01-23T03:40:24Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > So many conflicting statements in your response. “There’s no competition, but there is, it’s Google. The existing ISP’s will fight tooth and nail to not let anyone else in,”. > > Clearly there is competition. A monopoly is not defined as an industry where only large companies compete. As stated above 88% of Americans have access to two or more ISPs offering broadband. I will agree that it is a duopoly rather than a monopoly for most people. I do not agree that this just makes everything all right, nothing to see here. The fact that both providers just happen to be ones that are leveraging their existing monopoles of telephone and cable service further indicates there is a problem. The Google example is that a company as huge and flush with cash as Google is has only been able to even announce rollouts in, what, two markets total? That’s not a barrier to entry, that’s trying to quantum tunnel through 10 feet of lead shielding. Advocating for municipal broadband seems rather silly. Government shouldn’t force net neutrality, instead it should set up explicit competition of its own? What I (and I think many others) would like to see is something like the old dialup days–the telcos were real late to the internet party, so they just let calls to ISPs go through with no messing about, it was just a phone call to them like any other. Competition flourished, tons of choices out there. This is also pretty much the way that power is run in this area–a neutral company owns the power lines themselves, different power companies own the power plants, and I buy service from my choice of companies, delivered via the neutral power lines. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/32 "2015-01-23T03:50:46Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > It’s the difference between saying, for example, that a book delivery service cannot charge you extra just because the book you want to ship is the Koran, and saying **you’re not allowed to publish any book unless it is translated into French**. Could you pass that one, btw ? I really need the work. Thx in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/33 "2015-01-23T03:59:45Z")
I note the title of the thread is “If we’re going to adopt net neutrality…” Which suggests that the OP is unaware that net neutrality is how the Internet has worked since it’s inception. Which tells us exactly how informed he really is on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/34 "2015-01-23T04:42:09Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Excellent summary and the definition of terms help keep this debate on point. > > You probably know this, but Comcast owns NBC-Universal, so it also produces tons of content, maybe more than AOL-Time-Warner. Actually, I didn’t know that particular connection. I thought AOL-Time-Warner was the biggest offender there in both producing and distributing content. Just goes to show how complicated the field is now. That’s actually another problem I have with much of the debate on this issue… Companies like Comcast have no problem portraying themselves as the down-trodden and over-regulated ISP, and forget to mention that they have vast networks of unrelated subsidiaries that all stand to gain if they can throttle the competition. ---
**Author:** ![rock\_party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19b73/32.png) [@rock\_party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rock_party)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/35 "2015-01-23T05:20:32Z")
Very good explanation, dracoi. Yes, it seems Omar doesn’t understand that we’ve always had Net Neutrality and the ISP’s want to change it. When it was first being discussed, it seemed like everyone wanted to keep NN. But lately, Fox and other right wing outlets have been chanting how BAD NN is and how it’s about regulation and FREEDOM. Does anyone know why the switch? Did Comcast and Time/Warner send lobbyists with suitcases full of cash? Why only the right? ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/36 "2015-01-23T08:18:08Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Idea sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it: asking the government to force other companies to spend money and potentially incur losses from the use of their own intellectual property and assets just so other businesses might benefit from it. Yes. > [@](#): > > Sounds about as ludicrous as _net neutrality_ rules on their own. What? That’s not remotely an argument. You might as well have said “sounds about as ludicrous as the idea that we landed on the moon” or “sounds about as ludicrous as the democrats’ tax plan” - what you quoted has nothing to do with net neutrality. Apparently some CEO of a dying company made some nonsensical statement attempting to link his problems with a completely unrelated problem that has a lot of public support in the hopes of … something. Obviously what he wants is ludicrous and isn’t even linked at all with the thing he’s trying to link it with. If you want to actually argue against net neutrality - which you don’t even seem to understand, given the rest of your posts in this thread - you’re going to have to make an actual argument against it, before we can evaluate it. Because if your argument is “this blackberry guy doesn’t make sense, huh”, that’s not an attack on net neutrality. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/37 "2015-01-23T08:29:02Z")
As a free-marketeer who is firmly is support of net neutrality, I need much more convincing than what the OP provided to change my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/38 "2015-01-23T09:20:26Z")
The guy doesn’t want apps written for him. He wants the rights to use the apps they’ve already written. Right now, Netflix actively blocks their website on Blackberry browsers, and has been doing everything in their power to impede work on getting Netflix to work on Blackberry devices. He’s saying that, if Blackberry users want to go to [netflix.com](http://netflix.com), and have software that could handle [netflix.com](http://netflix.com), they should be able to go there, just like they can for [youtube.com](http://youtube.com) and others. You can see the connections. Why should the user be held back by the device they use? What if Comcast starts saying you can only access their broadcasts on Samsung brand TVs? Or you need AT&T branded phones to watch HBO? Is that really the way you want things to go? This isn’t unprecedented. They tried to lock out DVD use on Linux, due to needing a proprietary key, and it was found legal to deliberately circumvent the key in order to get basic DVD watching functions. Google DeCSS for more information on this. I mean, Blackberry devices already can side load Android apps. They can run the Netflix app. They can’t get on Netflix. (It has to do with encryption, which Blackberry has been developing their own app to deal with properly, and Netflix keeps stalling them.) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/39 "2015-01-23T12:23:11Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Y’know, I like HSI as much as anyone, but pretending that it doesn’t count if it’s not absolutely ridiculous isn’t really good argument. No, I’m saying it doesn’t count it it’s a marginal case that is clearly being dragged in as an inverse No-True-Scotsman. The argument I just shot down is based on expanding the definition of “broadband” to scrape below the level appropriate to the current state of the art as defined by the experts, in order to yield an apparent conclusion opposite that to which the actually relevant data points: > [@](#): > > [FCC To Raise Minimum Broadband Definition To 25 Mbps, Further Highlighting Nation’s Pathetic Lack Of Broadband Competition](https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20150108/08234729632/fcc-to-raise-minimum-broadband-definition-to-25-mbps-further-highlighting-nations-pathetic-lack-broadband-competition.shtml) > > Over the last few months FCC boss Tom Wheeler has been making the rounds highlighting the fact that while U.S. broadband competition is fairly pathetic by any standard, it’s particularly pathetic when it comes to faster speeds. _ **At speeds of 25 Mbps downstream, for example, nearly two-thirds of the country lack the choice of more than one broadband provider.** _ That’s obviously (to most of us) thanks to a lack of competition, and as I’ve noted recently that’s only going to get worse as phone companies accelerate their abandonment of DSL networks they don’t want to upgrade, leaving cable companies with a stronger monopoly than ever before… (emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593/40 "2015-01-23T16:04:38Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I note the title of the thread is “If we’re going to adopt net neutrality…” Which suggests that the OP is unaware that net neutrality is how the Internet has worked since it’s inception. Which tells us exactly how informed he really is on this issue. **Miller** , you left off the “rules” part of the title. Please provide a cite where in the US we have laws enforcing net neutrality. Five different bills have been proposed in congress, but none have been passed. So how informed are you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-were-going-to-adopt-net-neutrality-rules-might-as-well-and-save-blackberry-while-were-at-it/710593.md?page=3)