FC/OT: UncleLar, Art & others - thoughts on new net neutrality laws impacting online content....

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

consumption? Seems to me, with the internet 'as is', there isn't the option for internet providers to charge for high volume websites (YouTube, Netflix, etc.) - as a utility, the internet is one price for all access. With the proposed 'Restoring Internet Freedom Order' (snicker) law, it seems like the would be able to do exactly that, or something similar, to fine new revenue streams. Do you think this will have an impact on revenue for online streaming service components of B1G, ESPN, etc.? Or is this much ado about nothing?

WASHINGTON, November 21, 2017—Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released the following statement on his draft Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which was circulated to his fellow Commissioners this morning and will be voted on at the FCC’s Open Meeting on December 14:

“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.

“But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.

“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.

“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.

“Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different. Specifically, I will publicly release my proposal to restore Internet freedom tomorrow—more than three weeks before the Commission’s December 14 vote.

“Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world.”

 

[UncleLar]

Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.

I haven't seen the details of the plan, but this statement alone gives me considerable pause. It basically says "trust the ISPs". How many people that you know love and trust their ISP?

Also, I get a kick out of this too "“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress."

Anyone who is familiar with internet speeds in other countries around the world would find this statement very debatable (the US ranks about 20th worldwide).

One big problem is that ISPs are monopolies and, left to their own devices, refuse to compete with each other. The idea that "consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them" might be good if those service plans were offered by competitors, but they aren't. When you go to choose plans, the only choices that you have are typically from one provider. That's not good for the consumer.

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability

 

[UncleLar]

Seems to me, with the internet 'as is', there isn't the option for internet providers to charge for high volume websites (YouTube, Netflix, etc.) - as a utility, the internet is one price for all access. With the proposed 'Restoring Internet Freedom Order' (snicker) law, it seems like the would be able to do exactly that, or something similar, to fine new revenue streams. Do you think this will have an impact on revenue for online streaming service components of B1G, ESPN, etc.? Or is this much ado about nothing?

The people that stand to gain from this are the ISPs not the content providers like B1G and ESPN. The ISPs will be free to charge the content providers extra to deliver their content.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I haven't seen the details of the plan, but this statement alone gives me considerable pause. It basically says "trust the ISPs". How many people that you know love and trust their ISP?

Also, I get a kick out of this too "“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress."

Anyone who is familiar with internet speeds in other countries around the world would find this statement very debatable (the US ranks about 20th worldwide).

One big problem is that ISPs are monopolies and, left to their own devices, refuse to compete with each other. The idea that "consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them" might be good if those service plans were offered by competitors, but they aren't. When you go to choose plans, the only choices that you have are typically from one provider. That's not good for the consumer.

Why the U.S. Has Fallen Behind in Internet Speed and Affordability

Thanks for the comments!

 

[PS4814]

These have been thrown out regarding what the internet will look like when the republicans gut net neutrality:

 

[gamblepsu]

They missed the part where Content Providers will now be able to decide to jack up the cost for you to access what you want to access most.


Above is about right, but they can go even a step further and look at your behavior online and adjust accordingly.

 

[Cletus11]

Politicians are being bought by big business and billionaires now more than ever. World is truly evolving backwards to a class society where you will have the uber rich billionaries & politicians who run and own everything, an extremely small middle class, and then the rest living off of the government programs in what would be akin to an upper lower class level of living. Going to what Russia and Middle East and China are at lot like really. Bad for most people on this board I would suspect.

 

[Obliviax]

Nothing to worry about. The ISP's are already toast in terms of manipulating the market. Verizon, At&t, etc. are already testing 5G LTE. After five days of no Wifi, I ran just fine with my AT&T and Verizon 4G LTE. So the ISP market is fragmenting, and they will no longer be able to control it.

So the same is true with content providers. The govt has been trying to shut down companies like Pirate Bay for a decade. Its like wack-a-mole. Govt can do just about whatever they want...short of scrambling satellite communications, that horse is already out of the barn (meaning, shut it all down).

I am all for more choice. More choice means better prices. Again, being down for five days, I have come to learn that I can cut my costs in half and get just as good of content. (I've got to replace an old TV with a smart TV).

relative to internet speeds, we don't have a centralized govt to tell us what is "good". For example, China spent tons to build a really great airport but for sure spent way more than they needed to. The US operates on a business case model. Sometimes we are slow to react, but our decisions are, overall, much more efficient. Same is true with speeds. Do we really need more speed? Its like buying a Porsche Turbo versus a nice car. At the end of the day, the speed is just vanity.

Bottom line is, I don't trust the govt to regulate this. Nobody, aside from parents for their underage kids, should regulate information. Good news is, they won't be able to.

 

[artsandletters]

We need another Teddy Roosevelt to carry a big stick to these monopolies.

 

[BlueBand]

What Lar said-few have competition. Your internet or cable, you rarely have a choice of providers. But basically this sucks. There's at least three negative things that could potentially happen, as I understand it:

1.) sites could be charged by ISPs to be delivered faster. Which means you'll get Facebook to download at normal speeds, but local websites and startups without much money could be relegated to slow speeds. This benefits big sites and hurts small sites.

2.) ISPs could charge you basic internet charges but restrict the sites you can access. The more you pay, the more sites you can view. And then the ISP can turn around and charge the websites to be on certain tiers, like cable channels. Unless a user has an unlimited plan, you may no longer able to view any website you want.

3.) ISPs could charge a website just to be viewed by their users. Want Comcast users to see your website? Pay up. Oh, but FIOS will also have their hand out. Again, benefits big business, stifles startups and smaller websites.

ISPs can rake in the cash, and have no incentive to improve service.

 

[artsandletters]

Nothing to worry about. The ISP's are already toast in terms of manipulating the market. Verizon, At&t, etc. are already testing 5G LTE. After five days of no Wifi, I ran just fine with my AT&T and Verizon 4G LTE. So the ISP market is fragmenting, and they will no longer be able to control it.

So the same is true with content providers. The govt has been trying to shut down companies like Pirate Bay for a decade. Its like wack-a-mole. Govt can do just about whatever they want...short of scrambling satellite communications, that horse is already out of the barn (meaning, shut it all down).

I am all for more choice. More choice means better prices. Again, being down for five days, I have come to learn that I can cut my costs in half and get just as good of content. (I've got to replace an old TV with a smart TV).

relative to internet speeds, we don't have a centralized govt to tell us what is "good". For example, China spent tons to build a really great airport but for sure spent way more than they needed to. The US operates on a business case model. Sometimes we are slow to react, but our decisions are, overall, much more efficient. Same is true with speeds. Do we really need more speed? Its like buying a Porsche Turbo versus a nice car. At the end of the day, the speed is just vanity.

Bottom line is, I don't trust the govt to regulate this. Nobody, aside from parents for their underage kids, should regulate information. Good news is, they won't be able to.

Are you saying that you can get the Internet without an ISP? If so, I’m all ears. Thanks.

 

[BlueBand]

Bottom line is, I don't trust the govt to regulate this. Nobody, aside from parents for their underage kids, should regulate information. Good news is, they won't be able to.

As I understand it, this gives the ISPs more control. They will be able to throttle speeds on sites that don't pay them. They'll be able to limit the websites you visit based on how much you pay, or how much those sites pay.

 

[Obliviax]

As I understand it, this gives the ISPs more control. They will be able to throttle speeds on sites that don't pay them. They'll be able to limit the websites you visit based on how much you pay, or how much those sites pay.

yeah...I agree. The problem for them is that you will have so many more choices. Recently, not as much today, you are limited to a handful of providers that collude. Wait until 5G comes out. We are looking at 100mb for metro areas.

I mean, to me, its like fearing Intel dominating processor speeds. today, processors are a dime a dozen and typically have power that far exceeds what 99% of users need. You can build up and out servers, depending on the need to scale.

Once the infrastructure challenges are gone (land wires), its over.

 

[sluggo72]

Are you saying that you can get the Internet without an ISP? If so, I’m all ears. Thanks.

Earlier this year, Verizon agreed to buy fiber optic cable etc from Corning (GLW). Verizon will be buying up to 12.4 million miles of fiber optical cable each year for 3 years. Verizon is doing this to support existing 4H LTE but really getting ready to transition into the upcoming 5G wireless network. Dark fiber provides abundant bandwidth. Point is, high speed wireless internet will be in your home soon.

 

[BlueBand]

yeah...I agree. The problem for them is that you will have so many more choices. Recently, not as much today, you are limited to a handful of providers that collude. Wait until 5G comes out. We are looking at 100mb for metro areas.

I mean, to me, its like fearing Intel dominating processor speeds. today, processors are a dime a dozen and typically have power that far exceeds what 99% of users need. You can build up and out servers, depending on the need to scale.

Once the infrastructure challenges are gone (land wires), its over.

Show me all those choices, then we can talk.

 

[BobPSU92]

I. AM. NET. OUTRAGED.

 

[Obliviax]

Show me all those choices, then we can talk.

Ive got five for cable (AT&T, Spectrum, Wowway, Direct, Dish).

for highspeed, add to that six more (Hughs, Infinity, etc.)

Now, I can also dump my cable TV (as long as I have internet) with providers such as Hulu, Sling and more.

And 4G will do it for the above, 5G will blow it away in a couple of years.

Point is, by the time they legislate this, it will be too late.

 

[BlueBand]

Ive got five for cable (AT&T, Spectrum, Wowway, Direct, Dish).

for highspeed, add to that six more (Hughs, Infinity, etc.)

Now, I can also dump my cable TV (as long as I have internet) with providers such as Hulu, Sling and more.

And 4G will do it for the above, 5G will blow it away in a couple of years.

Point is, by the time they legislate this, it will be too late.

Where do you live?

Something like only 25% of Americans live in an area where they have a choice in providers.

 

[Obliviax]

Where do you live?

Something like only 25% of Americans live in an area where they have a choice in providers.

I don't believe that. 81% of americans live in or near cities.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Nothing to worry about. The ISP's are already toast in terms of manipulating the market. Verizon, At&t, etc. are already testing 5G LTE. After five days of no Wifi, I ran just fine with my AT&T and Verizon 4G LTE. So the ISP market is fragmenting, and they will no longer be able to control it.

So the same is true with content providers. The govt has been trying to shut down companies like Pirate Bay for a decade. Its like wack-a-mole. Govt can do just about whatever they want...short of scrambling satellite communications, that horse is already out of the barn (meaning, shut it all down).

I am all for more choice. More choice means better prices. Again, being down for five days, I have come to learn that I can cut my costs in half and get just as good of content. (I've got to replace an old TV with a smart TV).

relative to internet speeds, we don't have a centralized govt to tell us what is "good". For example, China spent tons to build a really great airport but for sure spent way more than they needed to. The US operates on a business case model. Sometimes we are slow to react, but our decisions are, overall, much more efficient. Same is true with speeds. Do we really need more speed? Its like buying a Porsche Turbo versus a nice car. At the end of the day, the speed is just vanity.

Bottom line is, I don't trust the govt to regulate this. Nobody, aside from parents for their underage kids, should regulate information. Good news is, they won't be able to.

What regulation exists that makes this new plan better? Is there a current federal law - other than one that maintains internet access is 'neutral' - that is inhibiting growth or access to content?

And my guess is this won't affect you much (which seems to be the case for a lot of conservatives I know - they're older, and don't play video games online), but it will impact a lot of people in different situations than you.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

yeah...I agree. The problem for them is that you will have so many more choices. Recently, not as much today, you are limited to a handful of providers that collude. Wait until 5G comes out. We are looking at 100mb for metro areas.

I mean, to me, its like fearing Intel dominating processor speeds. today, processors are a dime a dozen and typically have power that far exceeds what 99% of users need. You can build up and out servers, depending on the need to scale.

Once the infrastructure challenges are gone (land wires), its over.

How do you mean? Doesn't someone have to provide internet, even if wireless?

 

[BlueBand]

How do you mean? Doesn't someone have to provide internet, even if wireless?

He's secretly a Socialist... free 5G for everyone. LOL

Wait until his internet provider tells him that to access BWI forums, he'll need to cough up an extra $50/month for a better internet package.

 

[Obliviax]

What regulation exists that makes this new plan better? Is there a current federal law - other than one that maintains internet access is 'neutral' - that is inhibiting growth or access to content?

And my guess is this won't affect you much (which seems to be the case for a lot of conservatives I know - they're older, and don't play video games online), but it will impact a lot of people in different situations than you.

The laws on the books dictate who gets to use infrastructure like wires, poles, satellites, etc. They pay for that usage. Then they have their costs. Then, finally, the decide how much to charge. There are a lot of ideas floating around relative to charging by the MB, time signed on, speed, end point access...etc.

What I am suggesting is that there is not longer a choke-point that can be used to restrict customers. If you are not happy with what Verizon is allowing, your option is to go someplace else. As long as the govt doesn't get too involved, the free market will dictate based on supply and demand.

For a gamer, that is a unique but unnecessary application. And, again, it comes down to the law of supply and demand. But gaming is a big time business and I would suspect the big gaming companies have their own lobbyists and such. However, the restrictions I see in technology is simply costs. If you are richie rich and want to hand in the basement gaming, its just a matter of cost. Other developing countries will often pay for the infrastructure to be built...then they control access (at a cost). So

Bottom line is, for me, the market will be driving by demand.

 

[artsandletters]

Earlier this year, Verizon agreed to buy fiber optic cable etc from Corning (GLW). Verizon will be buying up to 12.4 million miles of fiber optical cable each year for 3 years. Verizon is doing this to support existing 4H LTE but really getting ready to transition into the upcoming 5G wireless network. Dark fiber provides abundant bandwidth. Point is, high speed wireless internet will be in your home soon.

I have Internet but my building is wired for Comcast only. Like most, I’m sick of paying full boat for the 10-11 channels I watch. Even f I just get Internet and streamed in Amazon Prime, Playstation Vue etc., they’re still hitting me for about $95 just for 25mbps. Add the streaming and I’m over what I pay now ($127).

 

[BlueBand]

I don't believe that. 81% of americans live in or near cities.

I'm guessing you live in a house, and not an apartment building where millions of people in and near those cities live. In NYC, for example, it's quite common to not have a choice of cable or internet provider, despite who might technically be available in that area.

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/the-new-payola-deals-landlords-cut-with-internet-providers/

 

[Obliviax]

How do you mean? Doesn't someone have to provide internet, even if wireless?

The internet was invented by Al Gove...(kidding)...The internet is governed by an international consortium. It really isn't a product but a network of connections and tools to establish standards and pipes so that servers can talk to servers over the world wide web. Think of it as the mesh point of PSU running and RPO. You can hand it, pass it or carry it!

Our govt does control access for our citizens, for the most part. For example, they can shut down access to the internet by turning off satellite access or whatever. They can shut down sites doing illegal stuff (pirate bay, napster, etc.). But these just pop up someplace else if you take the time to look.

Then there are the multi-nationals like Apple, Microsoft and Google who have no real national allegiance, but will seek to protect their shareholders.

Point is, there are a ton of players. It will be hard to create a choke point and control much of anything. But if your specific need is high speed for gaming, I am guessing the USA will not subsidize for that...check South Korea, Ireland...more manageable countries. In the US, try San Antonio or Austin.

 

[BlueBand]

I have Internet but my building is wired for Comcast only. Like most, I’m sick of paying full boat for the 10-11 channels I watch. Even f I just get Internet and streamed in Amazon Prime, Playstation Vue etc., they’re still hitting me for about $95 just for 25mbps. Add the streaming and I’m over what I pay now ($127).

Yes, if you drop cable and intend to stream TV instead, they jack your internet costs up, even if you keep the same internet package. The same internet speeds with cable can cost almost half what they charge without cable. Either way, you end up Paul my about the same.

 

[Obliviax]

I'm guessing you live in a house, and not an apartment building where millions of people in and near those cities live. In NYC, for example, it's quite common to not have a choice of cable or internet provider, despite who might technically be available in that area.

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/the-new-payola-deals-landlords-cut-with-internet-providers/

well, it all comes down to time and money. If that is an unacceptable outcome, move. Or you can buy a dish. Or, you can live off of 4G FTE.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

The internet was invented by Al Gove...(kidding)...The internet is governed by an international consortium. It really isn't a product but a network of connections and tools to establish standards and pipes so that servers can talk to servers over the world wide web. Think of it as the mesh point of PSU running and RPO. You can hand it, pass it or carry it!

Our govt does control access for our citizens, for the most part. For example, they can shut down access to the internet by turning off satellite access or whatever. They can shut down sites doing illegal stuff (pirate bay, napster, etc.). But these just pop up someplace else if you take the time to look.

Then there are the multi-nationals like Apple, Microsoft and Google who have no real national allegiance, but will seek to protect their shareholders.

Point is, there are a ton of players. It will be hard to create a choke point and control much of anything. But if your specific need is high speed for gaming, I am guessing the USA will not subsidize for that...check South Korea, Ireland...more manageable countries. In the US, try San Antonio or Austin.

Well, high speed networks for gaming is a need (for when I have a spare second), but not my priority (having access to YouTube Kids for my daughter is probably a priority). But, it's a big business. Depending on your platform (PS4, Xbox, PC), you already pay 'subscription' fees for the ability to play online, and some games add subscription fees on top of that. Online gaming uses a lot of bandwidth, and I could see this segment being seriously affected by the lack of net neutrality. The hope is that some provider will come along and say, 'Hey! You're a gamer? FiOS is going to charge extra for gaming - we won't!,' but there aren't any guarantees. My neighborhood had only FiOS and Dish/DirecTV until a few weeks ago - and this is an affluent, rapidly growing area. My options even then were and are pretty limited, and like most others, I can't just move somewhere for more internet competition.

 

[BlueBand]

well, it all comes down to time and money. If that is an unacceptable outcome, move. Or you can buy a dish. Or, you can live off of 4G FTE.

Ummmmm... no. Many buildings do not allow installation of satellite dishes. So that's not an option for a lot of people, both renters and condo owners.

As for 4G FTE, that is not very good for streaming all the time. And that only works if you have a device you can set up as a hotspot, or you're using your phone or a tablet that's you pay extra for to add to a data plan.

 

[Obliviax]

Well, high speed networks for gaming is a need (for when I have a spare second), but not my priority (having access to YouTube Kids for my daughter is probably a priority). But, it's a big business. Depending on your platform (PS4, Xbox, PC), you already pay 'subscription' fees for the ability to play online, and some games add subscription fees on top of that. Online gaming uses a lot of bandwidth, and I could see this segment being seriously affected by the lack of net neutrality. The hope is that some provider will come along and say, 'Hey! You're a gamer? FiOS is going to charge extra for gaming - we won't!,' but there aren't any guarantees. My neighborhood had only FiOS and Dish/DirecTV until a few weeks ago - and this is an affluent, rapidly growing area. My options even then were and are pretty limited, and like most others, I can't just move somewhere for more internet competition.

Yeah...I hear you. My son bought a $150 mouse a few years ago for gaming and says it makes a huge difference. For me, its not life or death so I am not too concerned. AT&T is offering 100MB, which is plenty fast for me. I have thought about getting a massive high speed line through my home owners association and sharing it via extenders but don't want the hassle of managing it (making sure everyone's extender works, security, etc.).

 

[Obliviax]

Ummmmm... no. Many buildings do not allow installation of satellite dishes. So that's not an option for a lot of people, both renters and condo owners.

As for 4G FTE, that is not very good for streaming all the time. And that only works if you have a device you can set up as a hotspot, or you're using your phone or a tablet that's you pay extra for to add to a data plan.

many providers offer unlimited plans. You can get apple TV and stream right from your phone to your TV via "mirroring".

And, as I said, you can always move if it is important enough.

 

[Obliviax]

here is a video discussing the issues in some detail.

 

[NJPSU]

many providers offer unlimited plans. You can get apple TV and stream right from your phone to your TV via "mirroring".

And, as I said, you can always move if it is important enough.

You can always move? Great. ‍♂️

 

[BlueBand]

You can always move? Great. ‍♂️

As long as it doesn't affect him, he could care less about the problems it presents for others.

 

[Obliviax]

As long as it doesn't affect him, he could care less about the problems it presents for others.

not really...not a lot I or anyone else can do about an apartment building. Senators are not going to consider the 35 floor apartment complex at jefferson and 24th street in their bill. It part of the cost of living in that apartment. Its no different then the lease being $1000/mo or $1250; if you can have pets or not have pets. These are the terms of the owner and you chose to live there or not.

I can't use plastic bags at the local grocery stores. My choice is to live with it or drive out of the county. But it isn't a national decision point.

My condolences for your difficult life.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

not really...not a lot I or anyone else can do about an apartment building. Senators are not going to consider the 35 floor apartment complex at jefferson and 24th street in their bill. It part of the cost of living in that apartment. Its no different then the lease being $1000/mo or $1250; if you can have pets or not have pets. These are the terms of the owner and you chose to live there or not.

I can't use plastic bags at the local grocery stores. My choice is to live with it or drive out of the county. But it isn't a national decision point.

My condolences for your difficult life.

Are you saying having high speed internet access or not is the same as having a choice of paper or plastic bags?

 

[WDLion]

many providers offer unlimited plans. You can get apple TV and stream right from your phone to your TV via "mirroring".

And, as I said, you can always move if it is important enough.

Let us know how you feel when your ISP starts charging you $10.00 a month to access this board.

 

[BlueBand]

Let us know how you feel when your ISP starts charging you $10.00 a month to access this board.

Don't worry, he'll just move.

 

[WDLion]

Don't worry, he'll just move.

To the North shore of Lake Erie.