RIP Net Neutrality, 1969-2018

Rest In Peace; I’m glad I knew you.

Other death announcements:





Curiously, I didn’t see a single story posted today or yesterday about how great this is; remind me who exactly wanted this?

Dumb people?

What is the over/under on the first confirmed case of non-net neutrality?

They do still desperately want it - they are the shareholders of the companies that plan to exploit your internet connection by monopolizing it.

I wonder how long before every kid knows that the old internet is useless.

Would anyone who believes this is a bad development care to offer a specific, falsifiable prediction for a negative consequence that occurs as a result?

Anyone?

And will you acknowledge error if your prediction fails to materialize?

I’ll go.

Would anyone who believes this is a good development care to offer a specific, falsifiable prediction for a positive consequence that occurs as a result?

Anyone?

And will you acknowledge error if your prediction fails to materialize?

I’m sure there is another thread that you were part of that lists many negative consequences. If they don’t come to pass, then I will acknowledge the error and be happy.

My understanding is that my ISP can now make certain content faster or slower. How could that possibly be a good thing?

Specific: ISPs that also offers a content distribution service (competitor to Netflix and the like) will either (1) throttle all competitors to give their service a competitive advantage, (2) threaten to do so unless their competitors give them shakedown money, or (3) in lieu of throttling do something like exempting their service but not the competitors from their data caps.

Falsifiable: Since (1/2) has already happened before the now-defunct rules were put in place, arguably this isn’t falsifiable.

Negative consequences: Decreased choice for consumers. ISPs that are already monopolies or near-monopolies in certain areas will be able to gain near-monopolies on content distribution as well. Under net neutrality, if an entity like Netflix obtained sufficient market share to begin acting in a monopolistic fashion, it would be easy for startup competition to make inroads. However, if the content monopoly is supported by the ISP monopoly, it is very difficult for competition by startups to correct the issue because ISP startup costs are so astronomical that the most likely real competition for Comcast et al in the future is SpaceX. The rocket company. Seriously.

The throttling wars are over. Netflix is basically another channel at this point and they and the cable companies are playing nicely together.

This is really all about data and targeted advertising. ISPs are best positioned to track your browsing history and profit off of it.

The door is also open for de facto censorship of sites and information opposed to the beliefs or business interests of the ISP CEOs.

In the U.S. at least, net neutrality began in 2015. I recall the internet working pretty well prior to that time.

Would you care to put a time frame on those? If we hit 2020 and none are evident, will you claim you’re waiting for the inevitable still?

See, that was the “falsifiable” aspect.

What is your specific falsifiable prediction?

Time frame? When could a tester of this prediction declare it had failed to materialize?

Don’t you mean, “When could a tester of this prediction declare it had failed to materialize again?” It’s not like it’s a secret that Comcast was engaged in exactly the behaviour described, and that its behaviour was part of what lead to the net neutrality rules that have just been repealed. I’m really not sure why you’re hellbent on giving ISPs the benefit of the doubt when they’ve already proven that it isn’t deserved.

Anyways, I would expect them to try to be a bit circumspect for a bit, but if we get 6 months into Trump’s second term (heaven forbid) without any major ISP abusing their monopoly to shake down content providers or push customers to use their own competing content products, then we can say that net neutrality rules weren’t that important after all. With the caveat that we’re allowed to change our minds if they stop behaving.

Net neutrality means I can’t ask for a lower priced web if I, say, never want more than 720p and no Netlifix or similar.
YouTube and Netflix are 50% of all web traffic and still get treated the same as something as the SDMB.

As this article says, if there was “cable neutrality” every channel would be the same cost, from local channel to premium NFL access.

No, that’s a horrible analysis. With cable you’re paying for both transmission and content. With internet, you pay your ISP for transmission and then you may pay various content providers separately for content.

Cable neutrality would be if you paid your cable provider only for the connection, and then you paid the networks directly for any channels you wanted (and some might be free, paid for by ads). And your cable provider was forbidden from charging the networks for preferential access to their distribution infrastructure, or from throttling some channels (that you’ve paid for, mind you) to unusable speeds.

Demanding a falsifiable claim doesn’t seem fair. We can make guesses, but how could we possibly know what they may do with this. As technology continues forward, I’ll bet they don’t even know what the future may hold. 25 years ago ISPs (ie AOL, Prodigy etc) wouldn’t have dreamed of being able to, for example, stream a movie. I remember back around the mid to lake 90’s being told ‘the copper wires can’t support more than 56k’ and a few years later DSL showed up.

Again, your question doesn’t seem fair. If someone says “I predict X by 2020” but that never happens, instead Y happens you win, but big deal. Just because a specific negative outcome with a deadline wasn’t predicted, doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.

As has been stated, Net Neutrality started because people were already testing the waters to see what they could get away with.
Verizon and Comcast have been caught throttling Netflix. Some ISPs have chosen to block certain types of data (which means they’re looking at it).
Someone, I don’t recall who, blocked either Facetime or Skype. People found that they could use the free video services instead of using their phone minutes. The ISP put an end to that, or attempted to.

Let me ask you this, or actually anyone that says suggests that the internet was fine up until now/and or agrees with ISP’s that say they’re not going to exploit this…if everything has been fine and ISPs aren’t planning to use this to make extra money, why are they so against a rule that basically says ‘so far, you’ve done an ok job just passing data from one end of the tube to the other, just keep doing that’.

I’m not sure what this means. Your ISP (Comcast, Spectrum etc) has nothing to do with what quality of video you choose to download. If you want a slower internet, go ahead and pick a lower tier. So far as I know, most ISPs offer several tiers.
Yes, your post here and your neighbor’s youtube video get treated the same, why is that bad? Would you prefer if you couldn’t post here unless you paid a $2/mo BBS fee? Would you be okay with them blocking Vonage unless you paid a $5/mo VOIP fee (unless you get theirs, then the fee is waived)?

Cable Neutrality, if it were like what you said, would be great. I hate that in order to get one channel, I have to pay $12.99 and get the 3 other ‘free’ ones that come with it. I understand why they do it, but ignoring that for a minute, wouldn’t it be nice if you get any channel you want, a la carte, for a set price and not have to pay for all the ones you don’t want.
You do realize that’s what’s happening now, right? Your basic lineup probably consists of 50% channels you’ll never watch, but they shove them down your throat anyways, and you pay for the privilege of QVC, 8 foreign language channels, and a few dozen others you have no interest in. I’m not seeing the downside.

However, if it was like net neutrality, you’d pay your cable provider a set fee each month to send you whatever you order, then you could go and get subscriptions to NBC and Comedy Central and HBO etc. It would be more like buying a Roku and getting Showtime Go, Hulu and Netflix.
That brings us back to NN, IIRC the cable companies that are also ISPs weren’t thrilled about HBO and Showtime letting people subscribe on their website for streaming instead of having to get the channel through cable package. That’s kinda what a lot of this comes back to.
Another question for you:
You can, even without a cable subscription, go and get HBO GO and stream pretty much anything they own, it’s a huge database of movies and shows. You can go and watch Six Feet Under or the Sopranos or Westworld for $15 or less per month. Are you okay with your ISP blocking that in order to force you to get it directly from them?