2 DAYS LEFT - Mozilla Net Neutrality Petition

[godspeed007]

+1 for net neutrality but time will speak of the outcomes.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

I don't get why all these pro net neutrality groups aren't funding new ISP's to bring more competition, since that is the real problem.

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

That's all? That's the great destruction humanity will suffer? I wonder why VoIP exists in Europe where there's no such thing as "net neutrality".

Net neutrality is a concept. It doesn't really exist in the truest sense as it has been simplified for the sake of the argument. I actually prefer the related principle of Open Internet.
As long as there is sufficient competition, then it doesn't require government intervention as it is easy to switch provider/ISP as I have done several times when ISP's have introduced data caps or traffic shaping.

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

That's the work of the insanely huge rate of tech development that does it, nothing to do with weather Netflix will pay more to serve its content at max speed or not.

Tech development that was possible due to the freedom of a neutral/open net without restriction.
Would companies invest heavily in tech dev for a closed system or would they rather develop for a system that is open to all and offers a greater return?
Billions aren't spent on tech dev just to prove something can be done, it is spent because a return can be seen.
Compare the investments made by companies on the infrastructure and network layer to the investments of companies operating on the Internet at the application layer.
Money is spent on the application layer because that is where there is unrestricted growth.
If there is more competition in the ISP world then surely this benefits the consumer and spending on the tech/physical layer.

Well, yes, it's completely irrelevant. Money flows where money is being made.

Great, you get it, that is exactly my point.

/jk

The Internet has evolved from a simple, symmetric network where light email and web traffic flowed between academics and researchers and the only revenues were from selling bandwidth, to an asymmetric one where traffic flows from content providers to consumers, generating massive revenues for content providers.

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/2014/net-neutrality/

This theory of innovation and investment — in both the applications layer and the network layer — is the core idea behind the FCC's 2010 open internet rules.

http://www.nickgrossman.is/2014/07/16/the-open-internet-and-the-freedom-to-innovate/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_service_provider

I don't believe that. If so, I don't think we have anything else to discuss on that point.

Then why the reservation and reluctance to an open Internet?

You mean you preferred an era where there was no so called "net neutrality"? How did you survive the barbarism?

It was hard!

Seriously though, the Internet has changed the world and in it's early stages it was all about the sharing, transfer and access to information.
Information that was closed to many because of various reasons, whether social or economic. Research that may have taken months or years to find was made instantly available to anybody that could access it.
Obviously, very few people at the time, envisaged that cat memes would rule the world.
Some say business and marketing dumbed down the internet, I disagree, the fact that every dumb ass can access the internet and that it is so simple is what dumbed the internet down! (the minor drawback of an open internet lol)
Who knew a flashy banner could get people to click on it?
My two main passions from the age of 13 were technology and business(making money/entrepreneurial endeavours), I took a break from both when I started a family and it only hit me that I should combine them several years later. When I first came across BHW, it was actually because I was doing some computer security research and obviously BHW came up when I was looking for Black Hat, when I saw it wasn't what I was looking for, I left. Now, that is a big regret, as I didn't find BHW again until I decided I wanted to improve my online earnings. Better late than never, I suppose.

I don't know, what will they do? Let's see, what DID they do outside of the US where there's no such coercion called "net neutrality" (very cleverly named, props to them marketer that came with it). Oh, yes, nothing! Godzilla has not attacked European internet users yet despite that. Perhaps he's too busy watching Netflix

Outside of the US there does tend to be greater competition. Where there isn't competition it is usually where the national telephone carrier/telecommunications company or mobile provider is still nationalised or where access to the infrastructure is limited. There is a lack of competition in the cable and satellite market which is obviously good for those companies but less so for the consumer. Companies tend to invest less heavily when they have people locked in. Innovation comes through competition. A free market should embrace competition, even if it does need to be subsidised initially. The huge cost of access to infrastructure/network layer is the barrier. In the UK, BT had to allow access to other ISP's through Local loop Unbundling which then rented space/access to the network, this allowed them to grow and invest in their own infrastructure and become true competition. BT was a previously a nationalised company that was privatised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_the_United_Kingdom#Unbundled_local_loop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling#United_Kingdom
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/broadband/dsl_facts/LLUbackground.htm
http://www.openllu.org/
The actual tech/network layer of the Internet never attracted much initial private investment because it was created by University/Government/Military research departments.

Oh and this guy first coined the term Net neutrality, he is a Lawyer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu

And please forgive me if everything I have posted is crap/incoherent as I still haven't caught up on my sleep!

https://www.aclu.org/net-neutrality
https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality
http://netneutralitymap.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_governance

 

[jazzc]

I can't argue if the basis for argument is not logic. You're conjuring religious statements that have no connection with reality and then you conclude arbitrarily. So, have fun

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

I can't argue if the basis for argument is not logic. You're conjuring religious statements that have no connection with reality and then you conclude arbitrarily. So, have fun

Haha, I don't recall making any religious statements therefore your post is clearly illogical

I admire your dedication to the Libertarian cause but that was a pretty weak response Jazzc, I was hoping for something a little more substantial.

Forgetting Libertarian ideology for a moment, I take it that you don't operate an ISP or have invested heavily into Internet Infrastructure but you do operate a business online, then can you explain to a simpleton like me, how net neutrality is not a good thing? What is your opposition to it?

Now, I am the type of person who is always open to learning and you are clearly more educated than I (I checked

), now I would like an intelligent man such as yourself with your superior intellect to provide a strong argument against net neutrality. I am not taking the piss and am being 100% sincere and genuine. I am prepared to change my position if the argument is strong enough.

If we take the simplistic approach that currently all data is the same (it travels at the same speed, has the same value and is accessible to all) and always has been, then why is Net Neutrality a bad thing?
Some are comparing ISP's to utility companies, to an extent they are very similar. Do I want my ISP to decide for me which data is more important or valuable? Where has been the investment from the major ISP's into our homes, how many homes have fibre? Or is it because they can get away with copper cabling and then issue a larger dividend each quarter?
The only argument I see is the Libertarian one and it is weak at best.

These were some of the best arguments against, that I found
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality/
http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-strongest-arguments-against-net-neutrality

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

UPDATE - Approved

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...net-neutrality-up-for-vote-today-by-fcc-board
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...c-set-to-approve-strong-net-neutrality-rules/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules/24053057/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31638528
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote_n_6761702.html

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Is the throttling ban for end users on mobile or content providers?

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

Is the throttling ban for end users on mobile or content providers?

Even though you have several posts in the thread, something tells me you might not have actually read what was posted.


Content Provider <<<<>>>> Carrier/ISP <<<<>>>> End User/Consumer

The throttling ban means the ISP can not throttle/restrict/limit the transmission of data either way.
http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=491


http://recode.net/2015/02/26/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-in-partisan-decision/
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...aws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...t-neutrality-vote-heres-what-you-need-to-know
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Net_neutrality
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102458909
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ernet-regulation-plan-obama-accused-meddling/


Here are the FCC statements:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a3
http://www.fcc.gov/

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

So the 1GB of full speed I have with T-Mobile will be replaced by a full speed unlimited plan?

 

[ygg]

You do realize that thing exists only in the US, right? Do you have internet access in your country or has Godzilla attacked because you're "unprotected"?

Yes, we have plenty of Internet here.

Here is mine, and I like it that way. Paying $7/m (Seriously!)



P.S. Congrats on the win!

 

[pxoxrxn]

Yes, we have plenty of Internet here.

Here is mine, and I like it that way. Paying $7/m (Seriously!)

Bring that shit to Australia.

This is my usual speed and I pay $AUD100 per month for internet.

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

So the 1GB of full speed I have with T-Mobile will be replaced by a full speed unlimited plan?

Ask the CEO:
https://twitter.com/JohnLegere




http://www.pcworld.com/article/2889...-rules-reclassifies-broadband-as-utility.html
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...rality-a-ban-on-paid-fast-lanes-and-title-ii/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8114265/fcc-ruling-net-neutrality-victory-internet-title-ii
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/fcc-passes-new-net-neutrality-rules-in-party-line-vote/
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/26/8117015/todays-net-neutrality-victory-explained-in-seven-minutes

 

[jazzc]

Haha, I don't recall making any religious statements

Religious statement: Any statement that is not based on logic but is conjured up by means of belief.

I never make weak arguments. If I don't have a solid one, I question my self why and then change my views if needed.

 

[Star Anise]

$7 a month. That's a really good deal. Better than my Verizon Fios that has 25 Mb/s download and 55 Mb/s upload. I wish my download speed was higher.

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

Religious statement: Any statement that is not based on logic but is conjured up by means of belief.

Damn, I could have got banned, I didn't realize I had started a religious thread!

I never make weak arguments. If I don't have a solid one, I question my self why and then change my views if needed.

Well there seemed to be a lack of opposing arguments in this thread, I had hoped a debate or some form of discussion would start.
Anyway thank you for the participation (even though it was minimal).

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

http://www.fcc.gov/blog/good-news-consumers-innovators-and-financial-markets

The comments are good for a laugh, anybody would think Godzilla has just broken the Internet.


http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a1

For:
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a2
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a3
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a4

Against:
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5 and http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation
http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a6

 

[RosuC]

I only have to thank you OP for gathering all the information in one thread. I'm considering that the idea of "Open Internet/Net Neutrality" is fantastic but I need to stay on the side of JazzC on the religious statement.
The only thing that I don't understand is about the fact that this is applying only for US citizens but it seems that will affect the entire world so is allowing to only one country to make the rules for the others (seems like Conquistadors from 1400-1600).
Anyway - I appreciate this debate, a strong one after many months here

 

[Wilson Grant Fisk]

I only have to thank you OP for gathering all the information in one thread. I'm considering that the idea of "Open Internet/Net Neutrality" is fantastic but I need to stay on the side of JazzC on the religious statement.
The only thing that I don't understand is about the fact that this is applying only for US citizens but it seems that will affect the entire world so is allowing to only one country to make the rules for the others (seems like Conquistadors from 1400-1600).
Anyway - I appreciate this debate, a strong one after many months here

Every country is free to decide and adopt whatever model it sees fit.
Even though this Vote was concerning the US, ISP's and Governments around the world would have being paying attention.
The ideology of Net Neutrality varies wildly between countries and individuals, in some locales it may not be possible (at present) to implement.

Here are a few articles that discuss other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Canada
http://blog.hotspotshield.com/2015/02/25/net-neutralitys-worldwide-impact/
http://www.newsweek.com/how-net-neutrality-working-countries-have-it-269632
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141536/marvin-ammori/the-case-for-net-neutrality
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/3/5577418/europe-connected-continent-net-neutrality-roaming-fees
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523736/around-the-world-net-neutrality-is-not-a-reality/
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...the-new-legislation-mean-for-you-9238768.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...the-us-net-neutrality-debate-matters-globally

Without doubt, the issue will come before the courts again, so the debate will be on-going for years.

 

[RosuC]

Every country is free to decide and adopt whatever model it sees fit.
Even though this Vote was concerning the US, ISP's and Governments around the world would have being paying attention.
The ideology of Net Neutrality varies wildly between countries and individuals, in some locales it may not be possible (at present) to implement.
Without doubt, the issue will come before the courts again, so the debate will be on-going for years.

I've participating at this debate 5 years ago in the EU Parliament as assistant and I know that the issue is not easy to be established as a law in European Countries especially because of the complexity of each step in order to apply it. Anyway the fact that for the moment we talk about Net Neutrality only for US citizens is disturbing me but is not affecting in any kind.
About the time frame to have a proper law regarding the Internet, I consider that in order to be effective we need to change a lot in the way of how some private companies are controlling the WEB and his content (I don't want to raise again the Anti-Trust issue regarding Google in Europe).
Is one step for US but a big one for the entire community of Internet Users

 

[Trepanated]

Religious statement: Any statement that is not based on logic but is conjured up by means of belief.

I never make weak arguments. If I don't have a solid one, I question my self why and then change my views if needed.

I believe the universe is infinite - does that make me religious?
I believe human nature is selfish - does that make me religious?
Whenever you have changed your views does that mean you were previously making religious statements?

As far as net neutrality goes, there are clear dangers to not having net neutrality.

Without net neutrality we immediately have a situation which favours incumbent, large, cash-rich players in the marketplace. The reason it favours them is because they can use their cash to ensure their traffic is prioritized.

It also means new entrants into the market are not able to afford the same traffic prioritisation - so they are disadvantaged.

And with the advent Ultra HDTV and on-demand TV, bandwidth requirements are going to skyrocket - which means the disparity between large, existing players and new entrants will only get bigger.

Without net neutrality we have a situation which enables monopolistic behaviours.

And it also lead to a situation which stifles competition - a new company with a genuinely innovative product may not be able to enter the market or gain any traction because they don't have the funds to prioritise their traffic.

And no, the consumer will not get to decide whether the incumbent or the newcomer wins the battle. In the case of on-demand UHD TV for example, what consumer will choose to watch a poor quality, buffering or unstable movie over the seamless service a company like Netflix can afford to buy?

The best company does not win the battle if there is no net neutrality - the richest one does.