Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

97
  • 25
    While I agree with the desire expressed here to be careful in how we frame this, I gotta emphatically dispute the assertion that ISPs are currently not classified as Title II carriers. As with the current proposed rule-making, the change to classification was proposed in 2014. It was then voted on in February of 2015, passed, and issued on March 12, 2015 (PDF linked to there contains the two dissenting opinions).
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 22:36
  • 8
    In short, the classification and relevant rules (which, I should in fairness note, do not include all rules commonly applied to common carriers), have been active for over two years, sufficient time for at least the initial outcome to be observed and discussed.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 22:40
  • 15
    Well, I'm not gonna lie - I think revoking the current rules is a bad idea, and I'm gonna say that. I'm not gonna say you suck if you're against 'em, but I am gonna ask folks to come here and elaborate on their reasoning.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 22:57
  • 12
    I really appreciate this reasoned and measured response. As a software engineer who wears many hats at a small (~3k customers) ISP, I support the idea of what I think net neutrality is, but have thus far been able to technically define it. From what I have seen in our telephone subsidiary, the tons of regulations and red tape around telephone service should not be applied to the world of technology. (Our telephone subsidiary has merged with the rest of the company but has not renamed because it would be prohibitively expensive (thousands of dollars?) to file the paperwork.)
    – Azendale
    Commented Jun 29, 2017 at 23:49
  • 21
    ISPs sure seem to think there is incentive to do this. In fact, Verizon has even admitted in court they would do it if they could. Why else would they keep spending so much money trying to push the limits? freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/…
    – Alexander O'Mara
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 6:00
  • 20
    “There is the one famous instance between Netflix and Comcast (which they resolved without the help of regulators).” So you would characterize an ISP sabotaging a customer and shaking them down for money, and the customer finally caving to their extortion, a satisfactory and healthy resolution? Kind of a case-in-point against your position, if that’s the kind of thing that’s being touted as the success of the unregulated position.
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 14:21
  • 10
    @KRyan I don't agree with your characterization. It seems to me more the case Netflix content was having a huge impact on Comcasts networks, and in order to better serve their customers, they needed to come up with some peering arrangement that they could both live with, which they did, Netflix's public protestations notwithstanding. I see this very much in the same vein as a similar dispute between Comcast and Bit Torrent which was similarly resolved. Neither of these instances seem to me like an obvious gap that net neutrality would have helped.
    – Ben Collins
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 14:26
  • 22
    @Won't I’m a Comcast customer and a Netflix customer. A portion of what I am paying Comcast money for is to deliver Netflix content. Comcast’s sabotage not only affected Netflix—it affected me, too. In fact, during that time, I measured dramatically lower bandwidths than advertised when connecting to Netflix servers. In short, Comcast was not providing me with the service I was paying for at that time. And Comcast suffered absolutely nothing for doing so, and ISPs in generally routinely defraud their customers without any problems. Yes, I think we need net neutrality protect us from ISPs.
    – KRyan
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:11
  • 13
    @BenCollins How is it inaccurate to characterize dramatically slowing down a single company's traffic, with the sole purpose of intentionally disrupting the company and its consumers' ability to use the service that they're paying Comcast for, sabotage? How would you characterize it?
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:22
  • 9
    Its amazing both Comcast and Netflix are still around and their customers are still getting internet and movies for reasonable prices at reasonable speeds without the intervention of the federal government. How the hell did that happen without NN?
    – user1228
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:22
  • 22
    @Won't Comcast is still around because they have a monopoly, and their customers have no choice but to use them if they want internet access. Netflix is still around because they paid the extortion money, and then eventually the fact that they were extorted ended up coming out and as a result of the subsequent publicity improved regulations were passed to make the net more neutral to prevent such behavior from happening in the future, removing Netflix's need to continue paying the extortion money, thanks to the intervention of the federal government.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:25
  • 13
    @Won't Cable company monopolies is a part of the forefront here. Sadly, the industry itself is a natural monopoly. It's not a service that lends itself well to competition, as it requires a large and expensive infrastructure, which would need to be duplicated for real competition to exist, and expensive and inefficient solution. The common solution to natural monopolies in various domains (power, water, etc.) is government intervention. As far as extortion, there's a general definition of the term and a legal definition, that differ in a matter of degree.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:38
  • 20
    It's the network you - as a customer - are paying them for, @Ben. Managing congestion is a critical function of running that network; hamfisted restrictions meant to avoid having to manage congestion isn't. This calls back to the old days of AT&T, where you couldn't attach a 3rd-party phone or answering machine because (they claimed) it could harm the network in some way; in practice it amounted to a thin excuse to maintain a monopoly on expensive equipment rentals.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 15:54
  • 11
    @BenCollins If they do a bad job of managing congestion then customers won't do a damn thing, because they have nowhere else to go, and their only choice is to just deal with it. It may be the outcome that you want for a major company to be forced to pay a bribe in order for a company to provide the services they had already been paid for, but that's not an outcome that many other people consider desirable, hence the regulation to prevent such behavior. You may not see how it's necessary or fair for a government to put policies in place for the benefit of society, but many others do.
    – Servy
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 17:57
  • 26
    Thanks for spending the time to dig up data on this, Ben - vastly improves your post. I gotta quibble a bit with the charts you posted: much as I'm looking forward to the day when it isn't true, I cannot seriously consider wireless a competitor to wireline at this time: most providers have either extremely limited geographic coverage, extremely limited data caps, or both. Focusing solely on wireline, over half the country has <=2 providers; that's not a healthy competitive market.
    – Shog9
    Commented Jun 30, 2017 at 22:05