Maggie's Farm

Mark: Net neutrality was like like forcing a Prius owner to pay per mile costs equal to, and subsidizing, my 2001 Silverado HD2500 operating costs.

Close. With Road Neutrality, the roads have to take you regardless of the type of vehicle, but can charge more or less depending on weight of vehicle.

jaybird: Net "neutrality" is like me paying "X" dollars per month for the personal drinking and shower water my family uses at my home. A large commercial truck and carwash, and a large irrigation farm pay the same "X" dollars per month for an enormously larger number of gallons of water use.

That is exactly wrong, and shows the power of propaganda. In fact, there is nothing in net neutrality that says ISPs can't charge more for more bandwidth. They do it all the time.

The water analogy doesn't work well, but it would be as if it were possible to choose your water source, but your local pipe was controlled by a single operator who restricted or throttled your access to only certain water sources.

Here is what it looks like in Portugal, which has weak protections. The effect is to entrench existing players, and disadvantage innovative newcomers.

jaybird,

You completely ignored your own analogy when it showed you were incorrect on what net neutrality actually means. It does not mean that you have to pay the same as someone who uses a lot more data.

jaybird: why do you ignore the censorship of the bandwidth hogs?

We're not ignoring it. They aren't monopolies, and to switch to another search engine is as easy as clicking this link. Without net neutrality, it may not be as easy, because the ISP may give preference to one provider over others.

jaybird: Net "neutrality" is like me paying "X" dollars per month for the personal drinking and shower water my family uses at my home. A large commercial truck and carwash, and a large irrigation farm pay the same "X" dollars per month for an enormously larger number of gallons of water use.

This was exactly wrong, and you haven't made any effort to understand why you were exactly wrong about what net neutrality means, nor adjusted your views based on this new knowledge.

indyjonesouthere: treat ISP's as a public utility just like your local water, power, or phone company.

Which is essentially what is meant by net neutrality, treating ISPs as common carriers.

As for local control, the new FCC rules preempt state and local laws concerning net neutrality. So much for limited government.

indyjonesouthere: If laws are needed at a later date I would guess there won't be a problem getting that approved.

Sorry, but state and local laws concerning net neutrality have been preempted by the federal government.

indyjonesouthere: Why are you so insistent ...

We're insistent upon fact. You want ISPs to be treated as utilities, which is very much akin to net neutrality. Then you say you want local control, but the FCC preempted local control with regards to net neutrality.

indyjonesouthere: You are simply playing into the hands of the FAANGs

Actually, established players no longer need net neutrality. They can afford to negotiate with all the various ISPs around the country, and pay the fees to gain a competitive advantage from preferred access. It's innovative new content providers that will be disadvantaged. The future will probably look more like cable.

indyjonesouthere: They wouldn't be lobbying for it if they didn't want it.

It used to be very important to their business models, but now less so. You could blame corporate inertia for their continued support of net neutrality, or perhaps they really do believe in net neutrality.

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore the argument. New innovators can least afford to negotiate with all the ISPs around the country, much less pay the fees they may impose, if they even offer such an option.

indyjonesouthere: And once again they would not be lobbying for it if they did not want it

They see net neutrality as critical for innovation.

indyjonesouthere: So, no thanks, keep the corporatists and government away from any net regulation.

Instead, you would have quasi-monopolies control the Internet, transforming its open character.

indyjonesouthere: Eventually they capture and run the department that regulates them.

Sure, which is why we have noted that targeted legislation would be better than ...

Title two regulation.

{Sorry, spam filter again.}

jimg: The road is still there. Everyone can use it equally.

Exactly. That's Road Neutrality.

jimg: But, you'd have to pay for more or less for FUEL depending upon the weight of the vehicle.

Exactly. That's Road Neutrality.

(It's "neutral" because it's irrelevant what is in the vehicle, only the weight matters.)

OneGuy: net neutrality was about seizing power. It was about censorship and propaganda.

What net neutrality means is that your ISP can't tell you what data you can download, that CNN and Maggie's Farm must be treated equally by the ISP.

indyjonesouthere: My ISP does not tell me what I can or can't download...it is an information channel only.

That's called net neutrality. That is what is at issue going forward.

indyjonesouthere: And it didn't require a single federal law or regulation...its been that way for nearly 20 years.

Well, sort of. The industry has grown substantially, meaning the stakes are higher than before. There's been increasing consolidation and vertical integration in the industry, with fewer choices for most consumers. And there are a plethora of new tools that allow ISP to discriminate by data types and sources.

The last few years have seen examples of how ISPs have tried to control the flow of data to their customers. A North Carolina ISP blocked Vonage. Comcast blocked peer-to-peer. AT&T forced Apple to block Skype, while also blocking FaceTime. A DSL service redirected Google searches to their own search utility. Verizon blocked tethering apps. And so on. These are just the leading edge of what ISPs will do now that they are unfettered.

The most likely way forward is for vertically integrated ISPs to bundle services. So AT&T bundles DirecTV with their service. This sounds okay, but what it does is lock in existing players, while disadvantaging innovation. If so, the Internet may begin to look more like cable.

OneGuy: What you said "What net neutrality means is that your ISP can't tell you what data you can download, that CNN and Maggie's Farm must be treated equally by the ISP." is the cover story for the real purpose; which is to control the internet, the users and the flow of data.

Classifying ISPs under Title II does give the Federal Communications Commission significant power to regulate.

{problems with spam filter won't allow a complete answer here}

It should be possible for Congress to pass a law protecting net neutrality without additional regulatory authority.

However, the current U.S. legislative process is dysfunctional.

Nonetheless, that CNN and Maggie's Farm should be treated equally by your ISP is something worth protecting.