I don’t understand Net Neutrality. Everything I DuckDuckGo is horribly biased. WTH is it?

There was a political forum I go to and a poster with the name "theJeff". Do you indeed post on other forums?

theJeff wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The idea that you don't like DuckDuckGo and that therefore you don't think net neutrality is valuable indicates that you do not understand DuckDuckGo and that you don't understand net neutrality.

(Hint: the reasons DuckDuckGo are not giving you the results you want has nothing at all to do with Net Neutrality).

No, I just used "DuckDuckGo" as a verb instead of "Google" to be snarky. I DO understand you point, but that isn't the issue here.

Still, good call.

Maybe if you want a serious discussion about a complicated subject you shouldn't start it with a nonsense post.

Here's a very good and thorough discussion that also covers the cultural symbolism of net neutrality and the "infrastructure development" arguments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/11/28/one-law-professors-overview-of-the-confusing-net-neutrality-debate/?utm_term=.4c27a6c650a5

(Incidentally, I don't think that anyone at the FCC ever actually believed their infrastructure development arguments. They just knew that they had to make those arguments if they wanted to justify their rules under Section 706.)

Hardloper wrote:

Remember, Google builds its own data centers around the world, connected by its own private backbone (Net Neutrality doesn't apply), with direct connections straight to the ISPs and content delivery networks that serve static content from closer to people's homes. By your highway analogy, Google is the guy that:

* Has its own highways

* Lives closer to the highway onramps

* Has people in every city so they only need neighborhood roads to visit you

and now you're worried Google might load faster?

Irrelevant unless Google is your ISP.

Remember before 2015 when the Internet was different depending on how much companies paid? Remember how ISPs would slow down certain websites because they didn't agree with their politics?

Me neither, because the regulations called "net neutrality" implemented in 2015 didn't change anything.

So all the hype about how removing those same regulations will change everything are disingenuous at best, and are being paid for by Big Tech, who don't want to pay more for clogging up the internet with their ads.

Today Netflix accounts for 36% of all internet traffic in North America. ISPs have special servers and regional caches of Netflix content to serve it to their customers faster. Netflix doesn't pay for that, but they probably should.

Also, claiming that we the people paid for all the existing bandwidth is a lie. The corporations paid for all the fiber they have been laying for the past 25 years. Governments did not subsidize the laying of fiber. Shouldn't they be able to use it how they deem best, since they paid for it and manage it? I bet they want to use it to serve their customers in the best way possible, because most US customers have choices in ISPs.

The marketplace would never accept service from an ISP that limits or bottlenecks content. Most people in the US do have a choice in ISPs and if a company tried to do that they would unsubscribe and go to the competitor. I know I would.

But if we decide we want "net neutrality" we should not implement it through regulations at the FCC. Congress should pass a real law addressing the issue. Otherwise, every time we get a different political party in control they will change the regulations. How can businesses plan their future investment with that kind of back-and-forth going on?

You unironically used an example that led to the Sherman AntiTrust legislation (Rockefeller's Standard Oil) as an excuse to deregulate monopolies and duopolies... interesting. Lost in your example of capitalistic forces prevailing for the ultimate good of mankind is the harm that it did to the larger markets and consumers while waiting for a market solution in lieu of regulation. What do you think happened when those oil transport prices skyrocketed? Heating oil became prohibitively expensive - affecting the poor, as well as textile and manufacturing operations in the northern states, not to mention shipping commerce that affected the southern states. It actually restricted economic growth while these titans were spatting. That's a long time to wait, when regulation could have protected the end consumers when monopolies were warring with each other (and/or colluding with each other - as will be the case if you repeal NN). That is the tough balance of economics - in the long-term, the market found a solution, but they were relying on the benevolence of one of the parties to create the solution. Rockefeller could have just as easily raised oil prices without innovating, knowing that his monopoly meant that consumers would have to pay for it (or gov'ts would start to subsidize it). If ISPs were actually innovating in their service delivery and it was a dynamic market sector, I could see giving them leeway and more autonomy. But instead, they are taking the opposite approach of Rockefeller, and are changing the drapes to make it look like innovation, consolidating and putting up more barriers to competition, while their broadband offerings have remained largely stagnant for a decade or more. This is a stale market sector that needs disruption, and the regulation that needs to be rolled back is the regulation that prohibitively bars other entrants to the ISP market. I agree with a previous poster, that the antitrust laws should prevent the kind of limitations of consumer choice that everyone is fearing... all that needs to be done in order to quell that anxiety is a signal from the Administration that they will be aggressively pursuing anti-competitive behaviors. But that hasn't happened, because it likely won't happen. And individual lawsuits take an unfortunately long time to work their way up, and at incredible costs that small entrants can't afford.... again, that short-term harm while 'hoping' for a long term gain.

My opinion on NN is that, if you are going to deregulate it, then you need to take big steps to deregulate the barriers to entry for competition to reduce that monopoly. If they get rid of NN, ISPs get it both ways. They get to keep barriers to entry high and keep their perch as monopolies, and they get freedom to restrict their product. If they are going to do away with one, they need to do away with the other to allow true competition for a market solution that actually benefits the end consumers.

"Back-of-the-envelope math"?? That is just false. The FCC and Dept of Commerce create regular reports on broadband penetration. Here is the latest from the FCC, published just over a year ago:

And DOC's report from the end of 2014:

The FCC report states "76% of census blocks in the United States have at most one provider that offers a 25 Mbps connection."

The DOC report goes into more detail: "Only 37 percent of the population had a choice of two or more providers at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater; only 9 percent had three or more choices. Moreover, four out of ten Americans did not live where very-high-speed broadband service – 100 Mbps or greater – is available. Of those with access to broadband at this speed level, only 8 percent had access to two or more providers; 1 percent had access to three or more.”

So, yes, there is plenty of data that details the lack of competition in the broadband market. They don't need to do 'back of the envelope" estimates. My conspiratorial side would more likely think that the FCC are prohibited from specifically speaking to the competitiveness of those they oversee. That is why, even though the FCC has the same data and actually presents it graphically in their report, they are careful to say that they are not speaking to the competitiveness of the industry. Thankfully, the DOC is not similarly handcuffed.

I don't dispute your larger points, though I hold different views and ultimately a different position on the topic, but I just wanted to correct your assertion that adequate data on competition is not available.

To the OP, anybody arguing that the broadband market has healthy, vibrant competition is fooling you. It is at worst a monopoly for 76% of the US by census block, and at best a duopoly for 37% of the population. That bears regulating and close scrutiny, and repealing NN would signal to them that the watchman is off the job. There are plenty of articles that give details of ISPs trying to restrict sites like Netflix, or services like Facetime. If there were true competition, I wouldn't have to deal with random service outages from Comcast every month while paying a crapload for lousy broadband speeds and no cable. The FCCs efforts should be on bolstering competition in broadband before loosening the regulatory reins.

MathIsntThatHard wrote:

The FCC report states "76% of census blocks in the United States have at most one provider that offers a 25 Mbps connection."

Exactly. I have one option for high speed internet.

Why the heck would you use GoDuckGo?

Why the heck would you? wrote:

Why the heck would you use GoDuckGo?

I use DuckDuckGo because I do not want google cataloging every search I do.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Maybe if you want a serious discussion about a complicated subject you shouldn't start it with a nonsense post.

The topic makes perfect sense to me: "I don't understand Net Neutrality. Everything I (search for about Net Neutrality on the Web) is horribly biased."

Hardloper wrote:

The topic makes perfect sense to me: "I don't understand Net Neutrality. Everything I (search for about Net Neutrality on the Web) is horribly biased."

How would you know something was biased if you did not understand it?

I think it is pretty clear theJeff does not understand Net Neutrality. He also does not apparently understand how to search.

Ajit Pai is acting in the interest of ISPs only, not in the interest of Americans. He deserves the hate he gets (though obviously his family should not be targeted, neither should he be physically threatened). Big crybaby should stop complaining, actions have consequences.

TrustBusted wrote:

...

What do you think happened when those oil transport prices skyrocketed? Heating oil became prohibitively expensive - affecting the poor, as well as textile and manufacturing operations in the northern states, not to mention shipping commerce that affected the southern states. It actually restricted economic growth while these titans were spatting.

....

When Rockefeller testified against allegations that his oil monopoly was unfair competition and hurting his customers, he responding by pointing out that as his company grew oil prices dropped.

Standard Oil was formed in 1870 and was broken up under anti-trust laws in 1911. If Rockefeller used his monopoly to raise his prices, it doesn't show up in the chart.

The fight with Vanderbilt and Scott occurred in 1872. That led to the pipeline and dramatic reductions in oil prices. If the government had forced Vanderbilt to stop colluding against Rockefeller, then the efficiencies of the pipeline would have been put off, keeping the cost of oil higher for a longer period of time while depressing standards of living for that duration.

I'll take innovation over regulation.

DiscoGary wrote:

I'll take innovation over regulation.

False dichotomy.

To the argument that less regulation leads to innovation. This is very true. Here are a few examples.

1) Banks were operating with little regulation and oversight. They started giving risky loans. Those risky loans were looking bad in their books so they packaged them up as AAA securities and sold them off to retirement plans, etc.. Then they innovated Credit Default Swaps where investors could insure their assets, and so could everybody else on the same asset. Then they realized there was more money to be made by lighting those assets on fire and collecting the insurance. Meanwhile they were telling their small investors to keep buying said assets. The REAL innovation came over a long period as they were installing bank executives into positions of influence into Washington DC. So when the crash came, their insiders solution was to bail out the very people who had caused the financial meltdown. The American people were financially crushed, bank executives made millions. True Innovation.

2) Oil companies decide to search for new sources of oil. They come up with Fracking. Way ahead of any regulation, they drill thousands of wells near population centers. They use caustic and toxic chemicals in the well and call it "proprietary" so they do not have to disclose to local residents what they are doing. Local residents begin to smell chemicals in their drinking water and earthquakes start happening. Local residents begin to develop major health issues. Oil companies make millions. True innovation. They also have installed former executives in Washington DC, so regulation is still negligible.

3) Pharmaceutical companies innovate the idea that Opiods are great for chronic pain and other ailments. They go and give seminars to doctors and incentives to prescribe. Doctors do so. Sales skyrocket. Pharmaceutical companies are required to report "suspicious" orders to the DEA. Millions of opiod pills are sent to single pharmacies in rural areas. They do not consider this suspicious because it makes them lots of money. 200,000 Americans are now dead from opiod overdoses. They too have installed former executives in Washington DC to squelch regulation. DEA ability to sieze drug shipments is taken away. True innovation.

4) Single use plastics are largely unregulated. The oceans will soon have more plastic than fish by weight. Much of the food we eat now contains micro plastics. Plastic companies make money. People all over the world now eat toxic plastic in their food. True Innovation.

5) Cars in the 1970s were highly pollutive. They were built as quickly and cheaply as possible with no regard for environmental issues. Regulations were put in place to reduce automobile smog. Even with 10x more cars on the road now, the air is cleaner in the US. Would companies have innovated that themselves? Doubtful.

We definitely need to stop all of this innovation killing regulation. It will be much better for the people.

Today Netflix accounts for 36% of all internet traffic in North America. ISPs have special servers and regional caches of Netflix content to serve it to their customers faster. Netflix doesn't pay for that, but they probably should.

They pay for it the same way everyone else pays for it - they have an ISP and they pay the ISP to transmit their data. I have an ISP and I pay them to receive data (and transmit, but I don't do much of that).

What my ISP is complaining about is that previously I didn't use the network that much (because I didn't have Netflix) and now I do. In other words, they are complaining that I am now using more of the service that I PAY FOR. If they weren't able to offer me the service at that price then why did they do it?

Innovativeness wrote:

To the argument that less regulation leads to innovation. This is very true. Here are a few examples.

1) Banks were operating with little regulation and oversight. They started giving risky loans. Those risky loans were looking bad in their books so they packaged them up as AAA securities and sold them off to retirement plans, etc.. Then they innovated Credit Default Swaps where investors could insure their assets, and so could everybody else on the same asset.

...

You left out the beginning of the story. Government forced banks to give low interest loans to people who could not pay them back, THEN they started giving risky loans because they had a Federal gun to their head.

The government caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Why the heck would you? wrote:

Why the heck would you use GoDuckGo?

I use DuckDuckGo because I do not want google cataloging every search I do.

Yeah, me too.