Net neutrality update
 

Rules dropped two months ago

~ Nothing happened ~

End of update, see you in the fall

What rules? Where they at to read?

There are no rules. There were some, but they were dropped. This led an entire set of people to say the sky would fall. You can't prove a negative, but so far the sky remains above.

To be fair, large-scale corporatization does take a while. Social Security numbers were issued with the staunch vow that they would never be used as personal identification for anything but your Social Security funds, and the people who feared it would lead to a nationwide ID system, which would then lead to tracking of our finances and the ability to steal someone's identity--they were called Chicken Littles, too. They were 100% right, but it took about 40 years before their predictions came true, and by then no one cared.

That's what this will be. In forty years we will all be paying for website bundles from our service providers--I bet they'll even call the lowest tier "basic" just like "basic cable"--and we'll just be cool with it because the progression was slow and that's how it is. And I don't even know if it's a bad thing, or if there was ever really a chance of avoiding it in the long run anyway. It wouldn't hurt for us to swing at least a little back toward a model where people expect to pay for quality information. But I'm 100% confident that there will come a day, before the two of us die, where websites are blocked by service providers and there is a complex but completely legal process by which CNN and AT&T have to negotiate over how much of AT&T's "news bundle subscription" price will be passed on to CNN--just like Netflix/Hulu/Amazon currently pay their content creators and demand exclusivity in certain contracts.

Remember when you could get any cable TV channel by pointing a big satellite dish at them, but then they scrambled it so you had to get a de-scrambler, or pay for the Cable companies box, but at least it was ad-free (because we were paying for it directly), but then they started airing ads, but at least the content was really good and interesting, so they crammed it full of ads, but then the content started to decline in quality, and anyway... now there is over 9000 channels full of rapid-fire ad cycles, its not even as good as FREE broadcast TV used to be, and they make a billion gazillion dollars from it.

But "I'm sure" they won't do that with the internet, because they're just gonna "be cool" and decide NOT to make another billion gazillion dollars.

Everyone has the cable model in mind. The cable model is broken. It's not going to work on the Internet.

Now that the cable box is two-way, the vast percentage of our time is spent on websites that we ourselves build. The channels are us, and limiting availability to them hurts the channels!

You could say that, for example, Youtube (which is millions of times larger and more important than CNN) would be in a position to make a deal with ATT. Suppose half of ATT subscribers do not have access to YouTube. That in turn means that YouTube loses all the revenue that it generates from those subscribers. It ALSO means that it loses all the content providers who use AT&T and don't want to pay. So now it is losing money on AT&T subscribers and non-AT&T subscribers.

Everything is different, now!

I believe that large-scale content providers are sophisticated enough to negotiate licensing deals with the regional ISP monopolies.

So as long as you're a million times more powerful than CNN, you'll be fine!

Sounds like AT&T has them over a barrel in your example. AT&T also is one of the companies that opposed net neutrality, while Google supported it.


While, outside of your example, Google probably has enough market dominance to mitigate that issue, AT&T certainly can exert the kind of pressure you describe on smaller and/or newer companies.

The power of YouTube: by limiting access to YouTube, or charging for it, AT&T loses a third of their subscribers to other providers.

We all know. We are not on the Intenet because of the name on the cable box/router. We are on the Internet because of YouTube. If we can switch, we will. If switching becomes important to a good chunk of us, new providers will arrive immediately.

CNN now uses YouTube to reach and monetize non-cable subscribers. Everything's different, now and far more interconnected. There is not much game in limiting. The game is in providing more and better services. MORE access to the YouTubes of the world.

Switch to whom? Verizon? Comcast? Most people may not even have access to all three of those, let alone others. And AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can charge newcomer ISPs to connect to them.


Plus, you know, my second paragraph. Google or Netflix might be able to threaten to take away a third of AT&T's subscribers, but can Vimeo?

This is a basic disagreement about what market forces do.

Either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."

But then how come I have to have Hulu to get some of my shows? Netflix would love to give me access to that content, but Hulu offered them more for an exclusive deal. Soon, I'm going to have to have a separate Disney streaming service, too, if my kids want to watch any of those movies, because Disney is banking that we'll pay a premium once their content is restricted more than it is now.

If AT&T cut off YouTube for the hell of it, then sure, we could switch to Spectrum internet instead. But what happens when AT&T negotiates an exclusivity contract that says the other guys can't have YouTube?

T-mobile.

Why would Vimeo limit their ability to build their channel? Why would any smaller website?

That is the limited game in limiting the audience: in things that are already monetized by intellectual property and already limited in that way.

Because they can actually make money from distributors who pay for content, and not the people watching for free with adblockers installed.

Not ETA: I do see some value in monetizing by limiting things with a limited time-frame: fresh content that is not already widely distributed, like news, shows, etc. Otherwise: we killed the music industry for a full decade and a half when they were too greedy.

We killed the music industry by distributing the content ourselves. We'll do it again. Witness, the complete American Hot Wax!

And AT&T doesn't have to overtly charge their customers to watch Vimeo, they can charge Vimeo for access to AT&T customers, or for a fast lane, or AT&T can not charge their customers for data on AT&T's streaming site, but demand that Vimeo pay if they want to be part of that deal. Then it's up to Vimeo to decide whether they want to lose a third of their customers, or pay the extortion.

(Oh shit, check that out! Thanks!)

Vimeo can filter too! It's two-way, this Internet. Why doesn't YouTube charge AT&T for its content?

Vimeo can filter what? Not sure what you're getting at. Vimeo could demand that AT&T pay Vimeo in order to provide AT&T customers with Vimeo content? And if AT&T laughs at them and says "no, you pay us?"

Yeah. I mean, I will filter all of AT&T's net blocks in about a half a day if they are trying to extort me. I don't think AT&T wins anything out of this proposition.

T-Mobile

Also: Please note that the exclusivity deals are an issue but are NOT the net neutrality issue. It's annoying that you have to subscribe to a million streaming services to get all the shows, but that's separate. Net neutrality proponents are not demanding that "Jessica Jones" be available on HULU.



Net neutrality is about ISPs charging content providers for access to the ISP's customers, even though the content providers are already paying their ISPs.


edited to add: The concept of exclusivity deals can get intertwined with net neutrality when the ISP also owns a content provider, and gives it preferential treatment.

Your initial example was that Youtube would not want to risk half their customers by blocking AT&T.


If you were an up and coming streaming content provider, and you reached the size where AT&T decided they wanted a cut, would you risk half your customers by refusing and/or preemptively blocking them? Even if their demand was only half of the money you would lose by doing so?



I would hope so, and I would hope that enough companies would join you, but I have little confidence that a privately held company would do so, and even less confidence that a publicly held one would. With net neutrality, they wouldn't have to make that decision.

So all those guys with business degrees will be so busy trying to out-maneuver each other, that they'll never be able to figure out how to extract more money from consumers, and/or build a business model that favors large-scale content providers and disregards guys with a web server in their basement?

And while we're busy debating this, they won't be quietly censoring political speech just like they were already doing before net neutrality?

Pretty much how it is now

If you decided to take the doors off of a prison, would the inmates walk out, or stay inside? Regulations are a thing that stops business from doing what you *know* its gonna do. Maybe not in two months..

I'm in favor of regulating what we know will happen... and against regulating what we "just know" will happen. We are not smart enough for that game.

This sort of for-pay access to ISP customers never happened *before* net neutrality was introduced. If you liked the Internet in 2015? I mean Comcast was throttling p2p for a while, that was a rough patch, but we got through it.

True: we are not smart enough to regulate capitalism. We should be, we could be, but we're not. I think this issue is just a litmus test of how you feel about capitalism, market forces, and the role of government.

Aside from the suppression of political speech aspect, which nobody really seems to care about as much.



ETA: Personally I think a capitalist system has legitimate motivation to suppress political speech, also.

Let us see how it all plays out. I expect there will be violations of some sort. Innovations too. We can catalogue them here.

Market forces: either they are designed to "provide better stuff," or to "make money."

In an unrestrained market (nuthin' more than you and me and him and her transacting) you provide better stuff to make money. If you make with the shoddy, you shaft yourself.

Unfortunately we don't have an unrestrained (Austrian) market: we got (Keynesian) state capitalism.

As things stand: net neutrality/no net neutrality amounts to the same thing.

George Jr created tax cuts in 2001. When did it do damage? Well after 2005. Damage, created by recently destroying net neutrality, will take years to be quantified by economics. But we know this. The first destruction of net neutrality almost 20 years ago means the many internet providers were eliminated; most only have two. A duopoly. No way around that reality. Now that duopoly, that already has excessive profits, can start collecting money from even more sectors of the economy.

The destruction of net neutrality means no more innovative internet companies. Duopolies can keep increasing charges.

Show me anyone who can have 100 Mbits for $20 per month. Not in America where attacks on net neutrality over a decade ago have resulted in America no longer in the top five nations for internet access. We already see damage due to damage to net neutrality well over a decade ago. It will only get worse since those rule changes only entrench duopolies.

Market forces happen instantly. The government reaction happens months lAter.
xoxoxoBruce

Zero-rating preferred content providers did, though.

In rural America this does not matter one bit because...

Internet speed test
015102050100+
0.30
Megabits per second
Testing upload...

0.44

Mbps download

0.30

Mbps upload
Latency: 185 ms
Server: New York, NY

Your Internet speed is very slow

Your Internet download speed is very slow. Web browsing should work, but videos could load slowly.

It's two months since the rules were dropped - how long we gotta wait for instantly?

Obviously not true. In the 1990s, we stopped buying crap Fords. So Nasser was replaced by William Clay Ford. William Clay started fixing problems in 2000. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money - because of what Nasser did. In 2008 and 2010, the work started by William Clay in 2000 resulted in massive profits. Where is this instant response? Never happens.

Kennedy created tax cuts in the early 1960s. So a recession resulted in the mid 1960s.

Obama administration in 2008 started fixing economic disasters created by George Jr (ie tax cuts, massive government debts) after 2000. As a result, four and ten years later (which includes now), we reaped one of a most robust economy.

Anyone can learn from history. Nixon spent money we did not have on Vietnam. When did that create a recession? Mid 1970s. Ford refused to fix this problem. Carter did at the end of the 1970s )ie 20% interest rates). Economic recovery then occured in mid 1980s.

Market forces only occur instantly when one is indoctrinated by myths and lies from business school graduates. History suggests that changes today appear in economic report four and ten years later.

GE was stifling innovation 20 years ago in most divisions. Economic reports (GE's spread sheets) are now reporting the resulting destruction. It takes that long for the money to finally report what happened.

Michael Powell's 2002 attack on net neutrality meant on the largest internet provider could survive. The last of free market competitors dies around 2010. That is when internet that should have been $20 per month for 100 Mb instead became $50+ per month for 20 Mb.

New FCC rules will only entrench the duopoly. Economic numbers should start reporting the resulting damage in four or more years.

Whereas it takes at least four years for economic growth to be reported, sometimes gross economic mismanagement can start appearing earlier - in a year.

With the 1929 stock market crash, Hoover made things worse by putting up restrictions (like Trump is doing) and tightening the money supply. As a result, massive job losses were in 1933.

Those are not markets forces, they are reactions to market forces. :rolleyes:

market forces are not instantaneous
 

Fundamentally, market forces are 'supply' and 'demand' (more accurately: 'suppliers' and 'demanders' [in other words: you, me, him and her {transactors}]).

Even reactionary, stampeding, transactors don't operate instantly or as a unit.

Market forces cause a change. Change requires innovation - new products. New products typically take at four years (or longer) to reach that market.

Many mistake money games with innovation. Innovation takes many years to respond to a market force. Competitive organizations saw it coming and were doing the work many years previous.

Destruction to net neutrality in 2002 took many years to destroy free market competition. More destruction to net neutrality will appear in prices and less choices many years from now. So much history repeatedly demonstrates it.

Market forces can be changed instantly by legislation, war, or cataclysmic events.

So the day after Pearl Harbor, the US produced 1,000 planes and eight new battleships? Even plans alone took months to start.

Why was a P-51 so dominate in WWII? Because it was designed long before Pearl Harbor and did not appear until 1943. It takes years for markets to change.

Damage created by subverting net neutrality will become apparent years from now. It is how markets, economies, and change works.

Thank you for proving my point, market forces can change instantly.

The change in net neutrality rules was proposed May 2017. 15 months ago. In Internet software time, that is long enough to design the plane, build a fleet of them, load them with fuel and sit them on the end of the runways.

Market changes can seemingly happen instantly when previously undisclosed; or, unrealized market forces are suddenly disclosed and/or realized by the general market.

The term Market Force; however, has a particular definition that seems to be outside of your application. Legislation and war are not impromptu events. Even most cataclysmic events are predictable to some extent. These are already reflected in market forces based on probability.

Blindsiding the general market is common, blindsiding the individual market forces not so much; yet, that is what would have to happen for market forces to be changed instantly. That's only likely to happen on a microeconomic scale.

Of course, might makes right and if you go out and blow up enough market forces when no one is anticipating that from you, it could be a revelation.

The San Andreas fault can change things very quickly.

Lex Luthor tried that by firing a nuclear missile into it; but, Superman brought the tectonic plates back together again. The market forces got over.

Somewhat (not directly) related story.

Follow-up to the previous story, specifically on the net-neutrality aspects.

A for profit publicly held company acting in the best fiduciary interests of the owners--biggest non-story ever.

the story has nothing to do with net neutrality

net neutrality is wallpapered onto the story anyway

why? ~ because more clicks, that is why ~

Because scaring you is in the best fiduciary interests of the owners of Ars Technica... Conde Nast.

It is tangentially associated, as described in the "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link. Not directly to the net neutrality specific rules, but in the general customer protection rules that the FCC threw away when they abandoned regulation of ISPs.


And while Ars Technica is unabashedly pro-net-neutrality, Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality.

I'm sorry. The *incident* had nothing to do with net neutrality.

The incident was they were throttled, like everybody else with a data plan who goes over it. The plans weren't different, before and after the rule changes. The practices weren't different. It's most likely a mistake was made.

Verizon says they failed to apply the conditions for an emergency provider to the plan. If this is a net neutrality thing, aren't they supposed to just brazenly change their policies? Not, like, make a customer support mistake and then fix it.

I mean, anyone use Verizon Wireless? Anyone ever have 'em make a mistake? Okay then.

But the thing is, last year, pro-net-neutrality elected officials in Santa Clara County filed a suit against the FCC for ending net neutrality.

Now, they get to add this incident as an addendum, of evidence that their suit has merit.

It doesn't mean that it has merit. Doesn't mean anything at all really. It appears to be lawyer money, spent by public officials in pro-net-neutrality land, using public funds to make sure they get re-elected by their pro-net-neutrality voters.

Ordinarily, a pro-plaintiff lawyer making an addendum is not really newsworthy. But if you are Ars Technica, you are part of the process and you can write not just one, but two stories about it.

Santa Clara County's lawyers explicitly tied the story to net neutrality? YES THEY DID. They gettin' PAID to do that shit.

The "Net neutrality rules and throttling" section of the second link discusses the connection of net neutrality to throttling plans. They allowed throttling only for "reasonable network management", and a commissioner interested in enforcing that rule (ie, not Ajit Pai) probably would not have accepted "because they hit a monthly limit" as a "reasonable network management" reason to allow the exception, in the absence of actual network congestion. So, while the story is mostly tangential to network neutrality, that aspect is directly connected.

Indeed. Hence my initial "not directly", and my follow-up to the story that described the connection fully.


I'lll add one errata for my last post: When I initially said it was Santa Clara County's lawyers, it was actually 22 state attorneys general (nice to see a couple of Republican states in there), the District of Columbia, Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, and the California Public Utilities Commission, in the case MOZILLA CORPORATION, et al. v. FCC.

No it isn't. It's bullshit. Ars Technica has to go back to 2014 and a commissioner who argued against throttling for people with unlimited data plans.

Unlimited, which the fire folks did not have...

Unlimited, a program that Verizon stopped offering at the time. Maybe because they couldn't do it without throttling. It's arguable that they should not throttle people with unlimited. Arguable that there should be a rule about that. But it has no bearing on this story.

And now, in 2018, they offer it without throttling. Even after the end of net neutrality rules.

The Santa Clara folks should look into Unlimited, because it's only a little more expensive -- they used 25GB in a month so they are "power users" -- and it would be a HELL of a lot cheaper than hiring LAWYERS.

In fact, wouldn't one single hour of one single lawyer pay for the entire difference to upgrade for several years? Ah, but if they did that, then the Santa Clara officials haven't fought the FCC, and can't make a case for re-election.

Yes they did, by Verizon's current definition of "unlimited" (get the unlimited that's right for you).

a limited unlimited aw fuck it let us just wait for a real fuckin' net neutrality violation

With a new constitution in 1999, Hugo Chávez changed market forces by using oil revenues and by nationalizing key industries. Short term economic improvements resulted between 2003 and 2007 (ie money games). Then a massive downturn afterwards. Things got so bad that he declared an "economic war" in 2010 due to shortages of most everything. The changes he started in 1999 resulted in massive economic damage and market changes almost 10 years later.

Changes, that he made in the early 2000s, result in economic calamity years later. Market forces take that long to affect / change an economy. Nicolas Maduro continued those changes in 2013 resulting in the recent 96% devaluation of the currency and a 2018 mass exodus by Venezuela citizens.

Only time a market force can cause immediate change this year - war and other forces that intentionally subvert / destroy all markets. Productive changes affect markets typically four years and sometimes decades later.

Economic destruction created by subverting net neutrality did not appear for many years. It takes long for markets to reap or suffer from changes. Longer to prosper. Sometimes shorter to suffer. Years for these next destructive net neutrality rules to harm the market.

Destruction of net neutrality will prosper the few, big, and rich at the expense of the many and innovative. American rating of internet access will continue to decline as the market did four plus years when Michael Powell first did so much harm to net neutrality in early 2000s.

Insight into the telecom lobbyist approach to the issue.