Verizon v. FCC (Net Neutrality/ Internet Openness)

[Starbuck]

So, today in history what we commonly call "net neutrality" was overturned by an appeals court (see Verizon v. FCC):

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) won an appeals court challenge to U.S. equal treatment rules for the Internet that could leave companies such as Netflix Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. facing higher charges for the fastest service.

-Bloomberg

Everything I've read has lead me to believe that this is a poor decision. Obviously I haven't read the entire 81 page ruling in its entirety yet, that's something for later tonight/ tomorrow. However, as an ardent proponent of freedom of expression and information, I feel that this will could possibly rob the average american of powerful information at the expense of corporate mandates/ profits.

Again, I haven't read the ruling in its entirety (I'm currently on page 12) and will reserve my final opinion on the matter until I've completely read the document and also researched any referenced material.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this matter:

• Is it an overreach of the government (FCC) an overreach of the private industry (Verizon/ Comcast)?
• Will this negatively affect the end users, or will it promote further innovation?

 

[lizzie]

I haven't read it yet, but my initial instinct with the net neutrality issue (as it has been over the past couple of years) is to oppose it.

 

[jamesrage]

I support net neutrality. I this this decision will harm internet usage.I can see cable internet companies purposely slowing internet traffic to netflix and other similar sites and claiming we now need to purchase a special monthly service to allow us access to those sites even though we already pay for internet based on download rate,blocking certain political sites and so on.

 

[Starbuck]

I haven't read it yet, but my initial instinct with the net neutrality issue (as it has been over the past couple of years) is to oppose it.

Why are are you opposed to net neutrality?

Is it a political stance or a practicality stance?

 

[lizzie]

Why are are you opposed to net neutrality?

Is it a political stance or a practicality stance?

Mostly political. I don't think it would have much effect overall, but gives the government more of a foot in the door on regulating information and content.

 

[Starbuck]

I support net neutrality. I this this decision will harm internet usage.I can see cable internet companies purposely slowing internet traffic to netflix and other similar sites and claiming we now need to purchase a special monthly service to allow us access to those sites even though we already pay for internet based on download rate,blocking certain political sites and so on.

I'm almost 100% certain that it will play out exactly as you've just described.

We currently pay for internet service through one of the major providers, they are also a major cable provider. As we see little value in any programs on television and happily pay extra to watch what few programs we do enjoy without commercial interruption. . . in other words we generally stream movies/ shows.

Several months ago I received a random call from the internet provider, who was ostensibly concerned that we didn't have television service. They offered to get us a great package (bundled with our current internet service). When I declined, they started asking probing questions about how we were able to enjoy our favorite shows/ games. They even specifically asked me if we streamed any programs. . . to which I immediately said 'no.'

Shortly after that conversation our connection started slowing down whenever we decided to stream movies/ shows at particular times.

I'm quite sure we were being throttled, and now it's totally legal for that to happen.

 

[Starbuck]

Mostly political. I don't think it would have much effect overall, but gives the government more of a foot in the door on regulating information and content.

I can see that, but what of the end where larger corporations regulate and push out smaller content?

 

[lizzie]

I can see that, but what of the end where larger corporations regulate and push out smaller content?

Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.

 

[Hatuey]

Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.

The US has maybe 5-6 major ISP providers and dozens of subcontractors. It's very similar to the big 3 as far as market share goes. So their idea of "competitive" pricing is a farce and insult to the costumers. It means that customers will have to argue over who gives the biggest scraps at the most reasonable high price. Net neutrality ensures that they have to provide better services. Again, fighting net neutrality essentially ensures cartelism. Good luck living up to your "Libertarian" label while supporting what is essentially corporatism.

 

[Starbuck]

Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.

I can agree that they don't have legislative powers, but I also see where they have censorship powers where the government doesn't.

For me, as a paying customer I don't want the ISP to tell me what/ when I can see on the internet. I essentially feel that I'm paying them for the bandwidth and they should leave it at that.

Net neutrality essentially guarantees this freedom, where I know some of these companies are just waiting to cut services to streaming video services.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.

That's a result of net neutrality, which is (at least temporarily) a thing of the past. If this decision holds you can expect an increase in pricing for the same service you now have, or a decrease in service for the same price.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm almost 100% certain that it will play out exactly as you've just described.

We currently pay for internet service through one of the major providers, they are also a major cable provider. As we see little value in any programs on television and happily pay extra to watch what few programs we do enjoy without commercial interruption. . . in other words we generally stream movies/ shows.

Several months ago I received a random call from the internet provider, who was ostensibly concerned that we didn't have television service. They offered to get us a great package (bundled with our current internet service). When I declined, they started asking probing questions about how we were able to enjoy our favorite shows/ games. They even specifically asked me if we streamed any programs. . . to which I immediately said 'no.'

Shortly after that conversation our connection started slowing down whenever we decided to stream movies/ shows at particular times.

I'm quite sure we were being throttled, and now it's totally legal for that to happen.

According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.

 

[Starbuck]

According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.

Naturally, larger content providers (i.e. netflix/ Facebook) being what they are, will in turn shift those costs back to consumers. . . in an attempt to protect their high profit margins. Mathematically, I'm pretty sure that the consumers will loose either way in this.

Profit aside, what of the content providers who can't afford to pay for the infrastructure costs. What about the lone blogger or the tiny newspaper service, who will not be able to afford the new costs? Traditionally the internet has provided a voice for those without much in the way of means, it's actually helped proliferate some pretty powerful information that would've otherwise stayed locked away.

With this decision, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of independent news/ information sites snuffed out.

 

[Starbuck]

That's a result of net neutrality, which is (at least temporarily) a thing of the past. If this decision holds you can expect an increase in pricing for the same service you now have, or a decrease in service for the same price.

That's probably true, I think along with this we'll also see a restriction on what is actually available on the internet.

 

[Gaius46]

Naturally, larger content providers (i.e. netflix/ Facebook) being what they are, will in turn shift those costs back to consumers. . . in an attempt to protect their high profit margins. Mathematically, I'm pretty sure that the consumers will loose either way in this.

Profit aside, what of the content providers who can't afford to pay for the infrastructure costs. What about the lone blogger or the tiny newspaper service, who will not be able to afford the new costs? Traditionally the internet has provided a voice for those without much in the way of means, it's actually helped proliferate some pretty powerful information that would've otherwise stayed locked away.

With this decision, I'm pretty sure we'll see a lot of independent news/ information sites snuffed out.

I'm pretty sure it means the cost to Netflix subscribers goes up as well. But considering that Netflix and Netflix users are effectively being subsidized I don't see that as a bad thing.

At this point I think the risk to lone bloggers and tiny news services etc is overblown. Those don't use large amounts of bandwidth - it would take about 3,000 accesses of a typical blog entry to use the same bandwidth as a single YouTube video - and those that are popular enough to use noticeable amounts of bandwidth are popular enough to charge for their services or pick up sponsors/advertisers.

 

[Zyphlin]

I support net neutrality. I this this decision will harm internet usage.I can see cable internet companies purposely slowing internet traffic to netflix and other similar sites and claiming we now need to purchase a special monthly service to allow us access to those sites even though we already pay for internet based on download rate,blocking certain political sites and so on.

"Why go to DebatePolitics where your internet speed is as "baseline" throttled levels of 50kb per second when you could go to COX POLITICS (TM) with 500 MB speeds making your pages appear near instantly and letting you talk about the politics most important to you at the speed of cox!"

 

[MoSurveyor]

According to the CEO of a Charter Communications getting rid of net neutrality would shift infrastructure costs from consumers to content providers. That means instead of you paying your ISP more to access Netflix, Netflix would pay more to distribute their content. Of course that may mean price increases for Netflix services but right not they aren't paying for infrastructure they use - which means their profits are artificially high.

So Charter is going to lower the cost of their service?!? :lamo

I already pay my ISP for access and bandwidth, I don't need to be paying them twice because I'm not using MY bandwidth for THEIR content. If they want to play that way they can change their plans and have a CTV-Internet package that provides a discount for having both.

 

[MoSurveyor]

That's probably true, I think along with this we'll also see a restriction on what is actually available on the internet.

I don't expect content to change, much, but bandwidth and/or speed will drop like a rock - unless it's the ISP's content, of course.

 

[MoSurveyor]

"Why go to DebatePolitics where your internet speed is as "baseline" throttled levels of 50kb per second when you could go to COX POLITICS (TM) with 500 MB speeds making your pages appear near instantly and letting you talk about the politics most important to you at the speed of cox!"

That may be exactly the kind of thing we'll see on larger bandwidth sites like Netflix, Hulu, maybe even the "TV" channels like ABC, CBS, etc, that stream their series/shows.


Watching YouTube at 240p won't bother me since most of what I watch there is educational. Music shouldn't be effected.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I'm pretty sure it means the cost to Netflix subscribers goes up as well. But considering that Netflix and Netflix users are effectively being subsidized I don't see that as a bad thing.

Is my ISP going to decrease my ISP cost to account for the millions they'll get from Netflix & others like it? Parish the thought!!! :shock: But Netflix will have to increase it's cost to account for those same millions.

Don't kid yourself, the consumer will get screwed by this. In the end we'll pay more for the same service or get less service for the same cost.

At this point I think the risk to lone bloggers and tiny news services etc is overblown. Those don't use large amounts of bandwidth - it would take about 3,000 accesses of a typical blog entry to use the same bandwidth as a single YouTube video - and those that are popular enough to use noticeable amounts of bandwidth are popular enough to charge for their services or pick up sponsors/advertisers.

Yeah, nothing like having to pay for YouTube ...

 

[Deuce]

Mostly political. I don't think it would have much effect overall, but gives the government more of a foot in the door on regulating information and content.

No, actually, it doesn't do that. You should learn what net neutrality actually is before forming your opinion of it.

Net neutrality supports entrepreneurship, startups, and therefore competition. Dumping net neutrality is inherently anti-competitive.

If I want to start up a video streaming service, I will be gouged by every ISP out there. I have to pay their fees to reach my customers, there's no way around them. And since it's essentially impossible for a different ISP to give me a better deal to reach neighborhood X, there's no competition to bring the price down. They have a monopoly in their respective regions. Netflix might be able to take on the additional costs, as they are already a large, well-established company. But DeuceStream isn't. I'm sunk.

And that's assuming the ISPs even bother to let Netflix survive. More than likely, they'll just charge Netflix exorbitant fees to drive up the prices, making the ISP's own video streaming service inherently more competitive. If Netflix wont pony up whatever insane number the ISP chooses, their business is throttled to the point of becoming useless.

This ruling gives ISPs the ability to charge the sender and the receiver of data selectively. That's like the post office charging you to send a letter to your grandmother, charging your grandmother for receiving it, and adding an additional fee because your letter contains the word "cookies," whereas if you'd used the post office's approved words you wouldn't see the extra fee. It doesn't cost the post office more money to send the letter if you use the word cookies, they just feel like getting more money out of words they dislike. Oh, and this is in a world where FedEx and UPS literally don't exist, because there's no other organization delivering to your grandmother's neighborhood.

 

[Deuce]

Large corporations don't have legislative powers. What I have seen in my area is an increase in available services, with more competitive pricing, not a decrease from large corporations squeezing out the competition.

75% of the population has access to only one cable company.

 

[Gaius46]

So Charter is going to lower the cost of their service?!? :lamo

I already pay my ISP for access and bandwidth, I don't need to be paying them twice because I'm not using MY bandwidth for THEIR content. If they want to play that way they can change their plans and have a CTV-Internet package that provides a discount for having both.

I agree with you that you're paying for a pipe and the ISP should not be able to impinge on your ability to access whatever content you want. And I don't expect that that's going to happen because, honestly, the FCC retains significant (and unwarranted in my view but that's another story) regulatory power over the Internet.
Í honestly don't expect that will happen. Costs may go up because frankly under the current scheme big content providers like Netflix and Google get a free ride.

 

[Gaius46]

Is my ISP going to decrease my ISP cost to account for the millions they'll get from Netflix & others like it? Parish the thought!!! :shock: But Netflix will have to increase it's cost to account for those same millions.

Don't kid yourself, the consumer will get screwed by this. In the end we'll pay more for the same service or get less service for the same cost.



Yeah, nothing like having to pay for YouTube ...

Someone has to pay for it. All those cables and routers cost a lot of money.

And honestly there are upsides to it. For example streaming video providers could pay for premium access and insure that you get glitch free video.

 

[Gaius46]

No, actually, it doesn't do that. You should learn what net neutrality actually is before forming your opinion of it.

Net neutrality supports entrepreneurship, startups, and therefore competition. Dumping net neutrality is inherently anti-competitive.

If I want to start up a video streaming service, I will be gouged by every ISP out there. I have to pay their fees to reach my customers, there's no way around them. And since it's essentially impossible for a different ISP to give me a better deal to reach neighborhood X, there's no competition to bring the price down. They have a monopoly in their respective regions. Netflix might be able to take on the additional costs, as they are already a large, well-established company. But DeuceStream isn't. I'm sunk.

And that's assuming the ISPs even bother to let Netflix survive. More than likely, they'll just charge Netflix exorbitant fees to drive up the prices, making the ISP's own video streaming service inherently more competitive. If Netflix wont pony up whatever insane number the ISP chooses, their business is throttled to the point of becoming useless.

This ruling gives ISPs the ability to charge the sender and the receiver of data selectively. That's like the post office charging you to send a letter to your grandmother, charging your grandmother for receiving it, and adding an additional fee because your letter contains the word "cookies," whereas if you'd used the post office's approved words you wouldn't see the extra fee. It doesn't cost the post office more money to send the letter if you use the word cookies, they just feel like getting more money out of words they dislike. Oh, and this is in a world where FedEx and UPS literally don't exist, because there's no other organization delivering to your grandmother's neighborhood.

Frankly that's not going to happen. I've spent some time reading up on this and have come to the conclusion that the FCC actually won. The court struck down the FCC regulation of broadband as a common carriage because the FCC itself and the courts have determined that broadband providers are not common carriers. Thus the FCC didn't have the legal authority to put those rules in effect using it's common carriage authority.

However the court also ruled that the FCC can regulate broadband providers under something called "Section 706", which Judge Silberman in his partial dissent noted essentially gave the FCC unlimited regulatory authority over broadband providers. There is nothing to stop the FCC from enforcing those rules by bringing suit against ISPs for what it considers anti-competitive practices.

So all the net neutrality fans got what they wanted afterall. And then some. The "open and free" Internet is apparently subject to the whim of the FCC.