Net Neutrality: what it is, and why you should care

641313984.jpg

UPDATE: It's been voted for repeal. The FCC took Net Neutrality to a vote, and it was 3-2, in favor of repeal. This doesn't mean overnight upheaval, but things will certainly change, for better or worse, in due time.
If you've been on the internet at all the past week, there's a high chance that you've heard of something called "Net Neutrality", and you've also likely heard that there might be huge changes to your usage of the internet entirely. This post serves as a quick information briefing on what Net Neutrality is, what could happen if it's repealed, and the current events going on regarding it, and just general visibility to let the community in general be informed.

What is this Net Neutrality thing?


The basic definition of network neutrality is simple: all internet traffic is considered and treated equally. It was established just a bit under three years ago, in February 2015. It prevented companies like Comcast Xfinity and AT&T U-verse from speeding up, or slowing down certain sites based upon content. If you remember, back in July 2017, mobile provider Verizon admitted to targeting Netflix traffic, and specifically throttling it, negatively affecting customers' use of Netflix. Going back to 2014, there were also issues with Comcast customers, and, that's right, Netflix users, as connections to Netflix were notoriously slow. Netflix then entered a legal deal with Comcast, in order to have Netflix connections be faster than they previously were. The 2014 incident was pre-net neutrality, and shows that before the law was enacted, certain sites like Netflix were indeed slowed, and had to specifically bargain with large telecommunication monopolies like Comcast to get fair speeds out to their customers.

In April 2017, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Ajit Pai, revealed that he had plans to repeal net neutrality. It's worth noting that Pai was once the Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications, an incredibly high up position with an ISP, who we've stated before as having throttled websites in the past.

Pai's statements on the matter included saying such things as "[the government] would be able to stop micromanaging the internet" and that the FCC and internet service providers would simply have to be "transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy a service plan that's best for them". Shortly after, Comcast began vocally supporting these statements, claiming that government regulation of the internet has been harming innovation and investments of Comcast. David Cohen, the company's Chief Diversity Officer, said that "customers would be clearly informed on our practices [...] Comcast maintains that it does and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content".

Within the movement for repealing net neutrality, also comes with power being given to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would then have the ability to legally charge internet service providers that were not made clear to customers.

You may notice, that within any of the claims made by Pai or Comcast, that equal traffic was never made the focus, instead putting emphasis on making sure these monopolies must be clear and transparent about what they do, but never laying down any solid rules about what they need to be transparent about or why. And, of course, if the FTC were to go after AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, or other assorted companies for not being transparent, these legal cases would find themselves taking years to make their way to court, allowing for them to have their way with their customers until a definitive legal ruling. Therein lies the first batch of unease and controversy with the repeal.

In short, net neutrality is a fairly new regulation, which allows for equal traffic between all sites while using the internet. The chairman of the FCC and former higher-up of Verizon wants to repeal it, however. This would allow less government interference with ISPs, but would also allow those ISPs to do what they wish, so long as they're "transparent".

Does repealing Net Neutrality have any benefits?

Spoiler alert: not really

From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality. Ajit Pai claims that should we not have net neutrality anymore, more rural areas would be able to have more companies and providers, and it would allow for more competition and choice for the consumer. However, these smaller companies would also have to fight it out with established services, with years of experience and infrastructure refinements.

As a side note, I've spent thirty minutes researching a potential "pro" argument. I've not found many that seem reasonable. I've listed in the spoiler tag below arguments from other websites and blogs.

Green Garage Blog: While net neutrality allows for freedom of speech, the downside is that almost anything can be posted to the internet. This means that the cruelest or insensitive information imaginable can end up on the internet, and as a result, it can cause a lot of problems from people that otherwise wouldn’t be prone to being under the microscope of criticism. This means that people can post cruel, intimidating, or other harassing messages and often get away with it thanks to free speech legislation. So it can be a very toxic environment for a lot of people to put up with.

Vittana: Reduced income from internet uses limits infrastructure improvements.
There are certain businesses and high-use individuals who consume large amounts of bandwidth every month. If net neutrality was removed, these high-level consumers would be asked to pay more for what they consume. This added income could then be used to upgrade the infrastructure of each internet service provider, making it possible for advanced fiber networks to be installed in many communities.

AEI: But in many instances, fast lanes, zero-rating, and the like benefit customers. In separate research, both former FCC Chief Economist Michael Katz (with Ben Hermalin) and I (with Janice Hauge) showed that fast lanes benefit small content providers in their attempts to compete with established industry leaders. AEI scholar Roslyn Layton has shown that elderly and low-income consumers benefit from zero-rating services.

Basically, the only benefit would be if America's current economy wasn't dominated by monopolistic ISPs. Below is an interview with Ajit Pai, showing his perspective.


Scrapping these rules, Pai told Reason's Nick Gillespie, won't harm consumers or the public interest because there was no reason for them in the first place. The rationales were mere "phantoms that were conjured up by people who wanted the FCC for political reasons to overregulate the internet," Pai told Gillespie. "We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015."

If left in place, however, the Title II rules could harm the commercial internet, which Pai described as "one of the most incredible free market innovations in history."

"Companies like Google and Facebook and Netflix became household names precisely because we didn't have the government micromanaging how the internet would operate," said Pai, who noted that the Clinton-era decision not to regulate the Internet like a phone utility or a broadcast network was one of the most important factors in the rise of our new economy.

Pai also pushed back against claims that he's a right-wing radical who's "fucking things up."

"[I ascribe to] the very radical, right-wing position that the Clinton administration basically got it right when it came to digital infrastructure."


What happens if/when this gets repealed, and what does this mean for you?


The worst part of this, is that there's no definitive answer of what WILL happen, only what CAN happen. What has people concerned, though, is the potential things that larger ISPs can do with this new power, should net neutrality be repealed. Internet service providers could slow access to specific sites, and speed up others, in theory, others specifically being sites who pay ISPs for faster access, and those partnered or in contracts with ISPs. Websites like Google, Amazon, Reddit, Etsy, Netflix, and many more have all broadcast their support of net neutrality, stating that without these rules in place thanks to net neutrality, internet providers would become gatekeepers to the internet, restricting what customers can see. Without definitive government restrictions, these companies could be free to split access to the internet into packages, like cable TV, indeed making true on the intention of lowering the cost of internet access, but also making it more difficult and expensive to see all of the internet, as you can right now.

Likely, what will happen, though everything is up in the air, is that certain ISPs will utilize what's called "fast lanes" and "zero rating". Fast lanes are sort of like what we talked about at the start, with Netflix and Comcast. Currently, these fast lanes and zero rating are used with mobile phone data. AT&T customers can watch DirecTV (owned by AT&T) via their mobile data, without it counting towards their monthly cap. These rules could be applied to home internet as well; if you're a Comcast user, and you want to watch Hulu (owned by NBC-Universal-Comcast), maybe your connection to Hulu will be lightning fast, thanks to these theoretical fast lanes, and they won't go towards your Comcast monthly 1 Terabyte home cap. But what if you want to watch Netflix? Either Netflix will have much lower picture quality, or take a longer time to connect to. And if Netflix pays a fee, or gets into a contract once again with Comcast, then that potentially means that Netflix's increased costs move down to the consumer, who also now has to pay more for a service as well.

What can we do?


The only thing left to do is let your voice be heard. Social media has exploded without people decrying the impending repeal of net neutrality, and the negatives that it would entail, to the point of where the majority of Reddit has been plastered with net neutrality posts.

zZOxMA2.png

The FCC will take the repeal to a vote on December 14, 2017. It is highly predicted that the repeal will pass, and net neutrality will come to an end. Millions have taken to the site "battleforthenet" and "callmycongress" to contact their local representatives and congressmen in order to show that American citizens don't want net neutrality destroyed.

You can learn more at the links below. Hopefully this is helpful in describing what net neutrality is, and why it shouldn't be taken away.

:arrow:Techcrunch: These are the arguments against net neutrality and why they're wrong

:arrow: Extra Credits: What a closed internet means

:arrow:Phillip DeFranco: The Internet is under attack

:arrow:Save the internet: What you need to know


:arrow:Ars Technica: RIP net neutrality
 

incidentallyscribble

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
863
Trophies
0
Age
38
XP
1,467
Country
United States
I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic
You have to remember that that was a time pre-ISPs owning streaming services, but yes there actually are cases of that happening before Net Neutrality. For instance, AT&T restricted use of FaceTime on their network unless users paid for a more expensive package (I believe it was because they had a deal with Microsoft to publicize Skype?), and both AT&T and Verizon had been known to completely block communications from organizations they thought were too "controversial"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThisIsDaAccount

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic
You have to remember that that was a time pre-ISPs owning streaming services, but yes there actually are cases of that happening before Net Neutrality. For instance, AT&T restricted use of FaceTime on their network unless users paid for a more expensive package (I believe it was because they had a deal with Microsoft to publicize Skype?), and both AT&T and Verizon had been known to completely block communications from organizations they thought were too "controversial"
What TotalInsanity4 said. Funny enough, there's also an instance of Verizon blocking some wallet apps to promote their own, which just happened to be named ISIS. I'll let you decide if it's got any connection to the middle east.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic
7-17-am-ooo-verizon-tweet-richard-rme3-9-13-12-ee-tmobile-20035472.png


Apparently it was actually T-Mobile.
 

Coto

-
Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
2,979
Trophies
2
XP
2,564
Country
Chile
I fully support net neutrality, development might eventually be affected, and I am sure people behind promoting internet blocking have seen it as something dangerous.
 
Last edited by Coto,

incidentallyscribble

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
863
Trophies
0
Age
38
XP
1,467
Country
United States
What TotalInsanity4 said. Funny enough, there's also an instance of Verizon blocking some wallet apps to promote their own, which just happened to be named ISIS. I'll let you decide if it's got any connection to the middle east.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


7-17-am-ooo-verizon-tweet-richard-rme3-9-13-12-ee-tmobile-20035472.png


Apparently it was actually T-Mobile.
Wow. I never used FaceTime so i didn't know that.... that's insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
Wow. I never used FaceTime so i didn't know that.... that's insane.
Yeah, that stuff does happen, and it makes sense it'll probably happen again if ISPs are given the chance. A lot of ISPs have their own apps, like the ISIS wallet, of partnerships with others, like AT&T and Skype.

Heck, AT&T probably has a partnership with HBO now, considering that they're offering it for free with their plans. It's totally possible they'll block Netflix and Hulu to promote HBO Go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Yeah, that stuff does happen, and it makes sense it'll probably happen again if ISPs are given the chance. A lot of ISPs have their own apps, like the ISIS wallet, of partnerships with others, like AT&T and Skype.

Heck, AT&T probably has a partnership with HBO now, considering that they're offering it for free with their plans. It's totally possible they'll block Netflix and Hulu to promote HBO Go.
Don't forget Comcast is owned by Time Warner, which has its own streaming service now
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,456
Country
United States
I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic
Right before Net Neutrality was passed, a lot of stuff was starting to get throttled. If you were a big League of Legends player at the time you definitely noticed it, the game was taking up a lot of traffic and it would lag half a day at a time because the ISP backbones refused to allocate enough bandwidth. Several years prior to that, it wasn't an issue because it wasn't just a few big players who owned everything. Now that is the case, and a monopoly alone isn't good enough for them, they also want to provide you shittier service while charging you more money.
 

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
Don't forget Comcast is owned by Time Warner, which has its own streaming service now
I don't think Comcast is owned by Time Warner, since Time Warner has an ISP service (Spectrum) that is separate from Comcast. Ddi you mean to say that Time Warner owns HBO?

Either way, Spectrum will probsbly block stuff to promote HBO Go, HBO's streaming service.
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
I don't think Comcast is owned by Time Warner, since Time Warner has an ISP service (Spectrum) that is separate from Comcast. Ddi you mean to say that Time Warner owns HBO?

Either way, Spectrum will probsbly block stuff to promote HBO Go, HBO's streaming service.
Doesn't Time Warner own Comcast, which owns Mediacom? I could've sworn every time the Warner Bros logo comes up in a movie it has "a Comcast company" under it
 

ThisIsDaAccount

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
1,158
Trophies
0
XP
944
Country
United States
Doesn't Time Warner own Comcast, which owns Mediacom? I could've sworn every time the Warner Bros logo comes up in a movie it has "a Comcast company" under it
I don't think Comcast has a parent company, and it wouldn't make sense for Comcast to allow Time Warner to sell Spectrum when they could just sell to everyone themselves.

Also, if Comcast owned both Spectrum and their own ISP service, they would be in severe violation of monopoly laws.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
I mean the more and more I read about this stuff the less and less it sounds like a threat, or that big of a problem. I've explained my reasoning just now in the general discord but the gist of it is is that if a company were to do something like create awful packages, throttle, block sites, etc, all one would have to do to make massive bank is announce that they as an ISP don't throttle, charge stupid packages, and so on to make huge bank off this. Even if the big ISPs were to do so, rural ones can start up around this and not work by the rules of shitty, greedy ISPs.

Besides, if you look at Free Press' list of Net Neutrality """violations""", shown here, https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history you can see a *lot* of these have nothing to do with the internet, but the infrastructure that provides it. This discussion is plagued with fear mongering, and removal of incredibly vital context, which probably explains why Ajit Pai isn't getting involved with all the people screaming on the internet about it, because it's undeniable that a huge majority of them aren't directly informed on the topic but rather from internet journalism sites, or social media, which twist things, get things wrong, or ultimately do not report things factually and accurately enough to have a fair, vital debate on this.

http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/
See this for the removed context I'm talking about.

I think people need to sit down, breathe for a minute, read everything -- not just what some big follower-count anitwitter guy tells you to think, but the proposal itself (found here https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf ) -- and think for themselves. Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthDub

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,456
Country
United States
I mean the more and more I read about this stuff the less and less it sounds like a threat, or that big of a problem. I've explained my reasoning just now in the general discord but the gist of it is is that if a company were to do something like create awful packages, throttle, block sites, etc, all one would have to do to make massive bank is announce that they as an ISP don't throttle, charge stupid packages, and so on to make huge bank off this. Even if the big ISPs were to do so, rural ones can start up around this and not work by the rules of shitty, greedy ISPs.
It wouldn't be an issue if there was actual competition in broadband service providers. That competition no longer exists, however. Comcast and Time Warner bought out all the little guys. If they didn't want to hike your rates and make other greedy ultra-capitalist moves, there'd be no reason for them to try and get Net Neutrality repealed in the first place.

When people do try to create local/community broadband now, the result is the big ISPs spend millions to prevent it from happening:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...Attacking-Colorado-Community-Broadband-140849

And if you're actually willing to believe/trust Comcast or Time Warner that they won't hike rates, I've got some beachfront property to sell you in Wyoming.

Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.
Well gee, I wonder why people would hate on a guy that ignores the entire general population just to push his own pro-corporate agenda. And no, there's no other time in history this would've been possible, because we didn't need Net Neutrality until ISPs started pushing for monopolies and throttling Netflix, League of Legends, and anything else that wasn't "sponsored content." We've already been through this Net Neutrality fight like twice, but people seem to have short memories.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
I think you have Time Warner and Warner Bros mixed up
I have a lot of things mixed up my guy

Edit: but not this apparently. I just looked it up, and Warner Bros. is the entertainment publishing company for Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable and Comcast merged in 2015

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.
So

What's your net worth then? /s
 
Last edited by TotalInsanity4,
  • Like
Reactions: Kioku

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,075
Country
United States
I have a lot of things mixed up my guy

Edit: but not this apparently. I just looked it up, and Warner Bros. is the entertainment publishing company for Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable and Comcast merged in 2015

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


So

What's your net worth then? /s
Everything I've seen says that merger fell through.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    STOP BUYING CHINESE CRAP THEN
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    SUPPORT LOCAL PRODUCTS, MAKE REVOLUTION
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THEY KEEP REMOVING LOCAL SHIt AND REPLACING WItH INFERIOR CHINESE CRAP
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    THATS WHY MY PARTNER CANT GET A GOOTWEAR HIS SIZE ANYMORE
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    HE HAS BIG FOOT AND BIG DUCK
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    d*ck i mean*
  • LeoTCK @ LeoTCK:
    lol
  • Veho @ Veho:
    Mkay.
  • Veho @ Veho:
    I just ordered another package from China just to spite you.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Communism lol
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    OUR products
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @LeoTCK actually good quality products are dying out because they can't compete with dropshipped chinese crap
    +2
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    @LeoTCK is your partner the sascrotch or smth?
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Good morning
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Out of nowhere I got several scars on my forearm and part of my arm and it really itches.
  • AdRoz78 @ AdRoz78:
    Hey, I bought a modchip today and it says "New 2040plus" in the top left corner. Is this a legit chip or was I scammed?
  • Veho @ Veho:
    @AdRoz78 start a thread and post a photo of the chip.
    +2
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Yawn
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    and good morning everyone
    +1
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    @BakerMan, his partner is Luke
  • Sicklyboy @ Sicklyboy:
    Sup nerds
    +1
  • Flame @ Flame:
    oh hi, S
    ickly
    Flame @ Flame: oh hi, S ickly