MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Pro–Net Neutrality Graphic Makes Argument Against Net Neutrality

Do net neutrality advocates fear consumer choice?

When I first saw this graphic cross my Facebook feed, I thought it was created to oppose net neutrality:

When I realized it was supposed to be from Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a prominent advocate of net neutrality, I thought maybe it was a clever hoax. But no, he tweeted that gem out yesterday.

In the upper portion of the graphic, bundled internet appears for $54.99. In the lower, post–net neutrality world, internet service is divided into specific uses one can opt in or out of. The total price is $54.96. Khanna's graphic even appears to depict an option where that price could be even lower, if you use only one streaming service or social media network.

That this is shared as an argument for net neutrality boggles the mind. Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media. They could see serious savings if internet access were sold piecemeal like this.

Regardless, the entire graphic is a fantasy. The kinds of additional consumer choices a net neutrality–free market might offer are thwarted by other government regulations and government-enforced monopolies

But we don't have to imagine what a world without "net neutrality" regulations look like. You just have to remember what 2014 was like.

The concept of net neutrality is often poorly understood. The "open internet order" promulgated by then-President Barack Obama was not based on the same principles laid out by law professor Tim Wu, who coined the term network neutrality. For Wu, it was obvious that "a total ban on network discrimination...would be counterproductive," but that's what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) did in 2015, as Andrea O'Sullivan pointed out in Reason. It's impossible to say exactly what kind of innovations such rules are thwarting, because they're being thwarted.

"Under my proposal," commission chair Ajit Pai noted yesterday, "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." Sounds like a good start.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Who wouldn't want to subsidize other people's preferences? That graphic is probably the best explanation of why Net Neutrality is a crock of shit I have ever seen.

  • Bearded Spock||

    So in other words, it's just like the Federal tax code.

  • Hunthjof||

    To answer your question Joey the millennial bandwidth hog who wants everyone else to pay for him to stream Netflix while he download 200 songs and movies while playing COD. Meanwhile Ethel the Grand mother two doors down who just uses the internet to email with her family and occasionally video them gets to pay for Joey.

  • mtrueman||

    "gets to pay for Joey."

    Joey's paying for himself. If his ISP doesn't want his business, they can presumably terminate the service.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're already allocating his bandwidth so Grandma can get on the net. The problem is that Joey thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do that, even if they're getting more money from two customers than they are from one.

    If Joey doesn't like that, he can terminate his service.

  • mtrueman||

    "The problem is that"

    The deeper problem is that the ISPs are not able to meet their customers' demands without substantial investment in the necessary technology. I think Britain had the same problem during the 19th century. Being the first to industrialize had its many advantages, but it also meant that she was the first to experience industrial obsolescence and the burden of large capital investments in creaky machinery.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And if demand is that high, then others will step into the breach and invest in the infrastructure development. No "net neutrality" needed.

  • mtrueman||

    "then others will step into the breach and invest in the infrastructure development"

    Fear not. Others are already stepping into the breach. Foreigners like the Japanese. Trouble is they are investing in Japanese infrastructure rather than antiquated American.

  • Sevo||

    "I think Britain had the same problem during the 19th century. Being the first to industrialize had its many advantages, but it also meant that she was the first to experience industrial obsolescence and the burden of large capital investments in creaky machinery."
    I think trueman is an ignoramus who spouts bullshit.
    Hey, trueman! Got a cite to show you're not an ignoramus?

  • gaoxiaen||

    That's why Germany rebounded so quickly after WWII. The French and Russians took all their worn out machinery as reparations. This was quickly replaced by modern efficient equipment, leaving Germany's competitors to eat their dust.

  • mtrueman||

    Sure, and that's why it's Japan, a relative late comer to the Internet, is leading the way. I read on wikipedia that NTT, perhaps Japan's biggest crony capitalists, has achieved data transfers of 1 petabyte per second over experimental fibre optics cable.

  • Hunthjof||

    Only place you would see that is on the long haul undersea cables.

  • Pedestrian||

    What customer demands specifically ? What substantial investment in technology ? Both the demands and the technology exists today. Innovation is not starved for cash by any means...they make billions now. What large capital investments are required now ?

    Way too easy to throw out these generalities and they mean nothing.

  • Pedestrian||

    So Joey's solution is to give up Internet service altogether. That"s what is going to happen. Then advertisers leave, Then the business on the net leaves.

    Soon there will be only porn, poker social and email. Nobody wants to pay $100/mo. to watch streaming video anymore. No more advertisers seeking eyeballs. The end of net neutrality, is the beginning of the end of most commercial and residential ISP service

    The greedy, rent-seeking capitalist as always, will...ruin the net too.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The end of net neutrality, is the beginning of the end of most commercial and residential ISP service

    Save your bullshit doomsday scenarios for the campus coffeehouse where they belong.

  • Bra Ket||

    "Joey's paying for himself. If his ISP doesn't want his business, they can presumably terminate the service."

    Wouldn't that just be a dumber version of the same thing? Cut off everyone who accesses google rather than charging them more. Customers learn they can only access comcast's search page or whatever instead.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|11.22.17 @ 7:27PM|#
    "Joey's paying for himself."

    The idiot known as trueman thinks that government price fixing, requiring everyone else to subsidize a selected group means that group is paying for itself.
    Trueman is a fucking idiot.

  • mtrueman||

    "subsidize a selected group means that group is paying for itself."

    Any customer is free to join this group. They don't have to be selected by anyone. The email using grandma is free to do gaming, bittorrenting and anything Joey does.

  • Hunthjof||

    But why should Grandma be forced to pay for services that she doesn't use to ensure Joey doesn't pay a higher price. The people bitching loudest for NN are people who want lower bandwidth users to pay for their bandwidth.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Well said Hunthjof! But you forgot to mention, that certain companies that offer things like streaming video and require high bandwidth, are also among the "people bitching loudest for NN" because they want people who are not their customers, to subsidize their customers and eventually their pocketbooks.

  • Hunthjof||

    Of course that too and they have deep packets to lobby for it. I have come to realize this entire debate can be summed up as a P$%SING contest between two groups of corporations that some people want the government to pick the winner.

  • Pedestrian||

    Where is the subsidy ? Do you mean paying for ESPN even though you don't watch sports ? Yes, that's possible but ESPN pays billion$ for the sport's rights and every time it goes up, it hits your bill eventually. It is why NFL viewership for example, is down and going lower.

    You will very likely see either the greatest profit center since MA Bell or the Internet goes down the tubes.

  • Pedestrian||

    It's all positioning for profits. Netflix for example pays millions and makes millions now. The Internet users (viewers) pay both Netflix and the ISP. The ISP is making millions.

    How is it, I am subsidizing someone else paying for the service and one I choose not to receive ? There was no requirement for Netflix to use more bandwidth to create the new medium it is.

    However, when the ISP's threaten to cut them off...extorted millions from Netflix.

    Without net neutrality, we'll see that everywhere, Netflix, Lulu, etc. So the entire array of viewing we have now, will...no longer be available unless...you buck up. Eager to pay more ? You will.

  • mtrueman||

    Nobody is forcing grandma to pay for her internet service. She does it voluntarily.

    If the ISPs have trouble delivering services, they should improve their infrastructure rather than trying to discourage use. Antiquated ISPs are a bottleneck to all sorts of internet development. I don't think any other country in the world would tolerate it.

  • Sir Chips Alot||

    if only she could do this. but nope. thanks to government regulations and government granted monopolies, it is cost prohibitive to launch an ISP.

  • mtrueman||

    " it is cost prohibitive to launch an ISP."

    You don't need to launch an ISP to get internet service. She could use the same service Joey is using, a different one, or none at all. Her choice.

  • DesigNate||

    Or Joey could just fucking pay more, like a goddamn grown up.

  • stanlee||

    or grandma can choose the bottom tier for like $20 a month, while joey chooses his 200 up/down for $90

    In reality the internet isnt broken up into email/gaming/social media/video

    What would twitch fall under? gaming/video/social media? So would that be 3 packages to subscribe to in order to use that site effectively?

    Is facebook gaming as well since it has games?

  • Pedestrian||

    Without net neutrality, In reality, the internet will be broken up into email/gaming/social media etc.

    Then they will hit you up good...$$$$

  • mtrueman||

    "Or Joey could just fucking pay more"

    We could always pay more, but Joey is paying exactly what his ISP expects of him.

  • Fernando Poo||

    "A different one" isn't an option across much of the US, still. And, right now, each of those "different ones" is likely to provide an overly expensive bundle for Granny who only wants to see her precious snowflakes on Facebook.

    I, for one, would pay for every service, even though it may cost me a bit more, because allowing my mom to pay $14.99 instead of $49.99 is the right thing to do.

  • MarkLastname||

    Or... charge him more.

  • ||

    The graphic is irrelevant to the issue. To the extent that it's coherent at all, it's an argument for the other side. The real issue is monopoly power, especially last-mile monopoly power. ISPs and other broadband service providers can throttle or censor content they don't like -- in fact, they have already done so, it's not speculation. Because of the monopoly, the user has no alternative. End that local monopoly, and at least in theory neutrality becomes unnecessary. How and what one pays for has nothing to do with the question once we're out of the monopoly domain.

  • Karen24||

    This is the big issue: that ISP's would block sites and the consumer has no choice but to accept it.

  • 153GreatFish-dot-com||

    Net Neutrality was Obama's gift to GOOGLE APPLE and California Dems for their online support.
    Get real people....evil is evil

  • Pedestrian||

    Where do you get this bullshit ?

  • Pedestrian||

    They will re-package what you like to do in a typical day and you will pay through the nose fort it.

  • DesigNate||

    Not that the last mile "monopoly isn't an issue, but do you have any cites of them censoring actual content?

  • V. Long||

    No recent citations can be made because of Title II. :)

    Not necessarily censoring "content" (as in an specific article of speech), but there are several examples of providers blocking types of services that they saw as "competing" such as VOIP (a NC telecom blocked their customers from accessing Vonage), or AT&T blocking Facetime for the same reason.

    Much of America doesn't have any choice as far as broadband providers due to the lack of competition and agreements among some not to compete for territory. Users may be left with a "walled garden" of provider owned content that looks more like AOL or Prodigy or Compuserve than anything we recognize as the internet today. Remember those? Imagine Comcast forcing NBC, MSNBC, and Universal content on us and charging more to access this site.

    This is not the "free market" at work, that is not capitalism at work -- this is a case of an industry that was allowed to traverse public right of ways to build a network to our homes as if they were a utility -- who has suddenly decided that they don't want to act like a utility anymore. Title II is what protects consumers from.

  • Pedestrian||

    .....just ask Netflix. They paying countless million$ now for the speed just to watch it.

  • Lester224||

    Joey has a plan which he pays for which provides a certain speed and bandwidth. Grandma does the same. If grandma is too dumb to pay for a cheaper plan, then she ends up paying for Joey. If the provider doesn't offer a cheap enough plan for Grandma, then that's capitalism.

    Agree the graphic is dumb.

  • Pedestrian||

    What 'cheaper' plan. Grandma and Joey will pay the piper for whatever service they get. The graphic is a tease or the hook you bite, then you are 'hooked.' Those rates will skyrocket in 2-3 years and once their 'innovation' gets them the technology, your Internet service will be packaged for you. Don't be at all surprised at $100+month Internet bills and with no greater speed or bandwidth...no innovations in your interest. Just re-packaged to charge you more.

  • Devastator||

    Nice straw man. Joey represents a tiny % of network traffic. I think the internet was running just fine before 2015, so I'm not panicked, but your red herring is very very red.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Somehow this discussion has lost site of the fact that BANDWIDTH or THROUGHPUT is the "resource" and the author and posters seem to take for granted that your ISP should be inspecting your traffic and assigning a value to it based on CONTENT. This is misguided and forces all kinds of unnecessary value judgments to be made by your ISP. For example - let's say 1 hour of HD video is 1 Gigabit... Which should cost more from your ISP?:

    a.) 1 hour video Math tutorial streamed by a struggling 7th grader
    b.) 1 hour live stream of your local city government
    c.) 1 hour episode of the real housewives of Yourtown
    d.) 1 hour of YouTube, TED Talks, and sports highlights
    e.) None of these - they should all be the same

    This article voices outrage (and derision) based on the complete misunderstanding that people only use the internet for the certain (same) things all the time. The beauty of the internet has always been the ability to "surf" from item of interest to item of interest freely - for learning and entertainment. It also seems to assume that what we do on the internet has not developed or evolved as technology has evolved. It fails to acknowledge the evolution of the internet from text to images, to sound to video and whatever comes next. This article presents a myopic presentation where the free market is only viewed through the lens of ISPs having a right to read the data they transport simply because they carry it the last mile.

  • V. Long||

    Oops. It wouldn't submit then it posted this several times. Sorry about that.

  • Pedestrian||

    If I am your ISP, I simply don't care which of those you prefer, I will bundle what you like, make you pay through the nose for any of it. So it E of course. Without NN, you are at their mercy financially.

    If you then go anywhere outside your choices (your new package above) I'll force you to agree in that package to pay by-the-minute if you go outside of it.

    Happy now that nothing has really changed, you just pay me a whole lot more than you are now.

  • Pedestrian||

    You fail to grasp that it matters what you do on the net as a matter of preference and it doesn't matter. The ISP won't care what you use the net for. They will offer you packages on where you go on the net, pay much more and if you browse anywhere else, you'll pay by-the-minute and a whole lot more.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Pedestrian, literally nothing you've posted here is based in fact.

  • Pedestrian||

    Could just as easily claim that Joey is paying his fair share with Ethel and grandma...paying too much. Joey isn't stopping Ethel or grandma from using what he does.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Could just as easily claim that Joey is paying his fair share with Ethel and grandma...paying too much.

    You could, but that would be a stupid claim.

  • Bert Bertram||

    Wow, so much for the next Netflix getting their start or perhaps reason.com being able to provide such unique opinions. The ISPs will throttle that down and you'll lose.

  • Hunthjof||

    Except Netflix hulu etc all started when their was no Net Neutrality. As did Pandora and Spotify. You are talking about a problem that doesn't exist. However you want to grant the FCC the power to throttle ISP's?

  • Pedestrian||

    Not true at all Huntjof. Where do you people get this stuff. The net has always been neutral under the common carrier section of the tele act of 1930. Netflix and Lulu don't get started if there hadn't been net neutrality. This whole debate is about taking the Internet away from the FCC where no longer legally a common carrier and...will hit us all up for $$$.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The net has always been neutral under the common carrier section of the tele act of 1930.

    No, the problem is that idiots like you think data allocation and prioritization never took place.

  • Loss of Reason||

    I mean we all love cable bundles right? I pay for like 4 channels and get to subsidize a 100 more.
    It's a win-win!

  • Hunthjof||

    Blame the channels not the cable provider.

  • Pedestrian||

    We all pay Oprah about $20 million a month.

  • babyowl53||

    So, you currently pay for your internet, social media, email, and video such as youtube? Because if you are then you are plainly being screwed.

  • Pedestrian||

    You just don't get it do you ? That graphic is a guess at what happens at the flip-of-the-switch. Give it 2-3 years and it won't even be close. Those packages will all cost much more and if you wish to modify a package, the ISP will help you out, they know already what you like and charge you more yet.

    So you can pay for universal service the way it is.

    Or you can take their 3.4. or 5 packages that will soon...cost you more. a lot more.

    .....and if you go outside your package...$100++per month and more for your new package and going outside...pay it or no net for you.

    Your Internet bill will look like a phone bill with all of those extra charges. Or we may be able to do away with browsers because we...won't be browsing.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This will be a good thread.

  • Sevo||

    Hey, someone has to do it!

  • Bearded Spock||

    Chris "knuckles" Nilan did it better for longer, and he was usually good for 20 goals a season too.

  • Rat on a train||

    Who's Ogie Ogilthorpe?

  • CE||

    What's this "hockey"?

  • gaoxiaen||

    What's this "this"?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was impressed by you last night. Certainly not my style, but you were unrelentingly willing to tell people to fuck off.

    Sometimes people need to be called slavers. It's part of growing up.

  • Sevo||

    "Sometimes people need to be called slavers. It's part of growing up."
    Often enough, it's also not worth rebutting the imbecilic 'arguments'. If they are dumb enough to post crap like that, the best they get is a kick in the ass.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I was thinking you were a human AV program

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No, that's Fist.

  • CE||

    Fist is an AI program. Reason has been testing it for years. It reads new articles instantly, copies a line, and makes a plausible comment about them.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Sevo will fight the prog techie randos just like he fought the Nazis during WW2.

    Respect.

  • CE||

    We've kept him on ice since then for just such an event.

  • gaoxiaen||

    +1 Otzi

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're not even techies, they're incel losers who are pissed because they think their child porn torrents are going to be throttled.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    His grasp of economics is on par with the modern Democrat.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    This entire issue seems like a mirage, fabricated for partisan politics.

    But I simply must not be getting the nuanced details of who is being screwed so bad one way or the other on this issue.

  • John||

    http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2.....ck-it-out/

    The full Clinton body count. Obviously, there is no proof the Clintons whacked any of those people. But the Clintons must hold the record for having the most people associated with them show up with bullets in their heads. Holy cow.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    No, no, no, sure governments kill foreigners by the millions and other countries kill their own people with A.A. Gun or chemical weapons. And sure our representatives sexually assault, commit fraud, do drugs, solicit prostitution, etc. but the one thing, THE ONE THING, that no US representative would ever or has ever done, is have a person killed for political or personal reasons.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I can accept that when Bill Clinton had his impeachment trial and a number of women came forward to prove multiple instances of infidelity and so forth. I can accept that. But to say there could have been more women in the past during his governorship who might have come foreward to say something that would surly have derailed the entire Clinton political machine -- just no. There were no other girls, it's blatant and abhorrent conspiracy. No politician would ever kill a person to protect their career.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Trudat. Those women were surly.

  • Rich||

    The Clintons have many friends. Statistically, some will be found decapitated or whatever.

  • Bearded Spock||

    It would be in interesting to compare the rates for suicide and accidental death among close Clinton associates with the US population as a whole.

    Maybe people who associate with the Clintons are just unusually depressed or careless.

  • Bert Bertram||

    If we lose net neutrality that link will not work so well

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Not to inject any facts into a purely political argument, but did any "Net Neutrality" specific regulations have any enforcement actions in the short time it's been around?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Yes. They went after zero rating. You can't let people access music or videos without it counting against our data cap.

    Ironic

  • Hunthjof||

    That was what I found most amazing. SO let me get this straight if I use a preferred service then I can have access to more data and that is bad somehow?

  • Arcxjo||

    Yes, because the opposite of that happening is words that some leftist realized could be put into a sentence, so that's the only thing that would actually happen.

  • Sevo||

    "Not to inject any facts into a purely political argument, but did any "Net Neutrality" specific regulations have any enforcement actions in the short time it's been around?"

    Are you a turd sock? He asked how O-care could affect insurance company values prior to its implementation.
    Hints:
    No publicly-held corporation really wants to get in a pissing match with the federal government and the free PR provided by most all of the statist media.
    And similarly, none would bother investing in something which is, in all likelihood, going to be a dead loss if the government choses to argue the point.
    Did that answer your question.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I have no idea what most of your reply means, but the statement "No publicly-held corporation really wants to get in a pissing match with the federal government and the free PR provided by most all of the statist media" is bogus.

    I don't think it's coincidental that Comcast and other ISP's did monumentally stupid things at about the same time the FCC was starting to tout title II designation, and I think the fact that they so blatantly and idiotically opposed it when they've been repeatedly been named the most hated companies is a solid case of "don't throw me in the briar patch".

    Title II is very possibly the best thing that could happen to Comcast and company.

  • Stephen54321||

    I am the 0.000000013%: "'did any Net Neutrality" specific regulations have any enforcement actions in the short time it's been around?"

    "Short time"?

    Net neutrality has been around for decades. Ever since since the start of the Internet back in the 1980s in fact.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I had hoped that putting "Net Neutrality" in quotes might indicate I felt the label was Orwellian...

  • Hugh Akston||

    So wait, how can I pay for for a plan that's just streaming video and email? Like is there a dedicated email tube? Tubes are how the internet works, right?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Motherfuckers

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Like is there a dedicated email tube? Tubes are how the internet works, right?

    Kind of, kind of not.

    Realistically, you can't. There are 'streams' of traffic which can be identified by TCP port (25 is standard, smtp email-- but won't work for web-based email services that go through HTTPS (443 etc)), and then other forms of traffic that could be identified either heuristically (tricky to do, but can be done) or literal destination. They could optimize traffic to Netflix's owned network subs-- or Hulu etc.

    Honestly, I'm not sure how it would work, aside from a company having a partnership with a known vendor that allows them to easily identify and prioritize their traffic.

    I suspect, in the end, it's traffic favoring, less traffic throttling.

  • Texasmotiv||

    It would be of extreme administrative cost to them to do such a scheme. No company would have the incentive to do it unless they really thought they were losing business because there were customers that would say, "I thought about buying their internet connection but I only would use it for email so I decided not to get anything at all".

    I'm sure as it is, they would rather charge you 54.99/mo for a pipe you never use than have to mark and schedule every class of traffic and block all others for what would be less revenue. New technology may make this easier in the future but with the rapid reductions in cost for increased bandwidth over the last decade extrapolated out, you are probably not looking at the future.

    The problem with politicians is they have the inability to imagine any reality but the present, combined with an incentive to create problems where none exist so that they can sweep in a play the hero. It's sort of disgusting.

  • ||

    It seems to me it would be fairly easy to throttle or block traffic based on the source (given current technology). There are other motivations to inhibit traffic besides direct commercial ones, most notably politics. If an ISP doesn't like what a web site says, they can just disable the host's connection until they get rid of the site. There are already instances of this sort of thing, so it's not merely speculative.

    In the future, expanded bandwidth, alternate kinds of channels, and sabotage will obviate the problem, but no one knows how far off that future is.

  • Zeb||

    OK. I have no interest in gaming or social media, so gimme the second one.

    I can't say I have a very good grasp of what all net-neutrality entails. But I'm pretty sure most of it's advocates have even less of a clue.

  • colorblindkid||

    They're scared about hypothetical worst case scenarios that aren't even that bad and that could have happened at any time before these rules yet still didn't.

    Mostly, they are mad about an entirely different issue, and that is the regulations that lead to cable and internet providers having monopolies in certain markets. That is a problem that absolutely needs to be fixed, but it has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.

  • Sevo||

    I'll disagree.
    From the continuing (other) thread, most are simply outraged that they will have to PAY for what they use.

  • CE||

    They're mad that someone who can afford to pay more might get better service.

  • KBeckman||

    Which is strange because Net Neutrality doesn't stop an ISP from just metering out data usage and charging for data used. But hey, as long as all data is treated equal.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm willing to concede that if there are monopoly in different markets then they should be broken apart. Further government regulation is not a monopoly busting action. In fact, we tend to see regulation help already existing players over new comers.

    Second, when monopoly exists we must ask why this is. I won't say monopoly is impossible in a free market, I don't know everything. I am willing to say it is commonly much rarer in free markets. And in this case it seems to be true, as many have pointed out that these local monopoly exist on local fiat granting certain rights to specific companies.

    Though, this also ignores that almost everyone who mentioned monopoly brought up that they did have multiple choices, just that one is much poorer than the other. That might be indicative of a overly constricted market place, but I don't believe it constitutes monopoly.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    (My standard reply on monopolies)

    Everyone thinks Big Corps drive little companies out of business, then raise their prices to make up the loss. But it doesn't and can't happen that way.

    Suppose Big Corp's cost of production is $100 for a $200 item. An upstart makes it for $75 and sells it for $150. Big Corp drops their price to $125 to undercut Small Corp, losing $75 on every item while Small Corp loses only $25, and consumers prefer the cheaper and newer product.

    Suppose Small Corp goes bankrupt. Their unsold production hits the shops at fire sale prices, and Big Corp loses even more. Other Corp springs up with more backbone and even better production costs, especially if they can buy Small Corp's assets cheap. They can survive on $50 profit longer than Big Corp can survive on only $25 profit.

    Suppose Big Corp does scare off competitors for a while. They raise their price $75 to make up the losses, to $275. This encourages new startups to produce for $75 and charge "only" $200 and make $125 profit while consumers shift allegiance even faster.

    Only economic and business illiterates think it possible for Big Corp to stay in business under such conditions.

    Government-created monopolies last as long as the government wants. Natural monopolies only last while competitors scramble to catch up with new inventions.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I tend to be very suspicious of monopoly as well and associate it with significant government intervention in a market. I don't want to be taken as wrong on that. I only am willing to admit that I could be wrong, but that further regulation is not the correct path regardless.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Small Corp was my nickname at Crossfit.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Crossfit

    I'm sick as shit of you Seattle elite bragging everywhere you go.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    My posts are jokes, I never attended kindergarten, let alone crossfit.

  • stanlee||

    yeah tell that to amazon, they run at a loss and can still keep going from their size and dominance alone that makes up for the loss anytime they want....not that im swaying one side or the other here.

  • ||

    Almost all regional telecom monopolies exist explicitly because of the Government.

  • ||

    Net Neutrality is supposed to counterbalance the monopolies. That's the relationship.

  • ||

    Net Neutrality is supposed to counterbalance the monopolies. That's the relationship.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I turned on the Netflix and they don't yet have season 8 of The Walking Dead.

    THANKS FCC!!!!

  • Eidde||

    NO IT DOESN'T!

    Wait, I don't know anything about this issue, should that stop me from...nah, SEASON 8 IS AWESOME!

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Literally the worst season of a show I've ever seen. WORSE THAN THE LAST SEASON OF DEXTER.

    I thought TWD was great in season 1, but it's been a pure hatefuck hobby ever since. I watch it purely for the giant abortion of lazy writing and mailed-in execution it has become.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's because they fired the entire staff after the first season to get cheaper people. Including the original head, Frank Darabont of Shawshank fame.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    WORSE THAN THE LAST SEASON OF DEXTER?

    Wow, strong words there.

  • CE||

    I heard Game of Thrones was pushed out by half a year because of this FCC order!

  • xramcire||

    ...or I pay for the cheapest option plus a VPN service then my ISP has no idea what content I'm viewing.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Yesterday's thread with all the nn supporters sure got interesting. It's amazing how many of them will claim that the fcc will only use their powers for good.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I dare you to name a federal agency that has ever abused its authority.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm going to need a definition of abuse here.

  • DarrenM||

    You'll probably need definitions for "ever" and "authority", too.

  • Hunthjof||

    I think Reason has a post character limit so couldn't give you the full list.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This is common across many debates. People will admit the government is corrupt, and the government holds much of the blame for the outcomes. They will then posit the solution is more government control to correct previous government action.

    Maybe it's just a political version of sunk cost fallacy? Though, someone also asserted yesterday that libertarianism is an overly simple, utopian philosophy which I think says something. As people seem to view billions of people working independently of one another leading to generally better outcomes as simple.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Not sure sunk cost fallacy is it.

    It seems to be that they never admit the underlying premise of the program/policy is wrong, it's:

    1. Lack of funding
    2. Obstruction
    3. We didn't go far enough.

    hmm. so I say confirmation bias?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Sunk cost fallacy is where future decisions are based on how much you've wasted already. I imagine sometimes that does matter, like if you are making a 1000 mile road trip, the decision to continue after a flat tire or fender bender might be different if you just left the driveway or are one turn from your destination. But those miles represent measurable progress toward the goal, and that's not what teh sunk cost fallacy addresses.

    Suppose you've started a stupid war and spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and someone suggests maybe you should just stop and leave. To argue that you must stay to honor all the blood and treasure that's been squandered for no gain ... that's sunk cost fallacy.

    Or maybe your company has spent millions of dollars trying to develop a perpetual motion machine, and some smarty pants scientifical genius proves it can't be done ... you can't stop working on it, that would show that you were stupid before, so you have to keep plowing ahead.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Libertarianism can certainly come off that way at times, which is why I'm always careful to say that not every outcome will be better under libertarianism. But the idea that you can know and control the complex systems of human existence is bonkers. And stupid.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe in my post I mentioned that there is a strong ethical component to much of libertarianism (FUCK OFF SLAVER). I know that, ultimately, I come to it from that direction. I already believed this at the time, but I remember a quote from Penn Jillette that said effectively, "All the stuff about being better for people in the long run is probably true, but I don't know. At it's core I come from a place that says, 'How can I, or anyone else, force another person to do something?'"

  • Fairbanks||

    Basing the view of libertarianism on outcomes being better has the problem of defining better. What does better mean? For who? I tend to stop the argument at "Everyone works independently based on their own preferences and goals." (with NAP weaved in). It's hard to argue against that, unless you're debating with people who don't believe in agency and who feel that the anointed are best at deciding our preferences. And a debate with those types is fruitless. They simply have a totally different philosophy.

  • Mark22||

    Libertarianism can certainly come off that way at times, which is why I'm always careful to say that not every outcome will be better under libertarianism.

    Libertarianism isn't concerned with outcomes at all, it's concerned with liberty: non-aggression, property rights, etc. Those happen to produce desirable outcomes in many cases, but that's not the point or justification for libertarianism.

  • Rat on a train||

    Government: If you think the problems we create are bad, wait until you see our solutions.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    I had another thought on this. People are willing to acknowledge government abuse or corruption in obvious hindsight. But you try to point out where it can happen in the future and they ignore you.

    They think it's bad actors, or "rogue elements". It will work with the right people because good intentions.

    We see it as a structural problem with government and its incentives.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's why, as much as I wish for a libertarian moment, I'm doubtful of it coming soon. Many of the crossover in policy libertarians might see with certain groups, they come from fundamentally different places.

  • Hunthjof||

    "They think it's bad actors, or "rogue elements". It will work with the right people because good intentions."

    No matter how many times you point this out they will still go into one of the three defaults mentioned above.

  • ||

    Turning state power against itself certainly seems like a possible solution to certain problems. The state (combination of government and favored corporations and persons) establishes a monopoly; you can end the monopoly -- apparently hard to do -- or you can partly paralyze it (common carrier regulations, for example). It _would_ be nice if we could just get rid of the monopolies, but many of them seemed strongly locked in to local political establishments.

  • Sevo||

    "It's amazing how many of them will claim that the fcc will only use their powers for good."

    Equally, in spite of increased capacity/falling prices, the claim is the companies will decide, arbitrarily, to withhold bandwidth rather than charging for it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Once guy claimed it didn't "cost" anything to send bits from point a to point b on the internet. Because maintaining routers, datacenters, cooling, fiber lines, and the capacity to carry kajillions of bits simultaneously is free. Absolutely free. Zero cost.

  • Rich||

    "Show me my e-mail bill!"

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    But the marginal cost for a single extra bit IS zero, or as close as makes no difference.

    And gajillion tiems zero is still zero, right Mr Math Genius?

    See? Zero cost. Absolutely free. Ha! Not so smug now are you?

  • DarrenM||

    It's the first bit that gets you.

  • Rat on a train||

    A bit here, a bit there, soon we're talking yottabytes.

  • CE||

    So why do On-Demand movies cost $5.99, instead of 25 cents? Couldn't they put RedBox out of business tomorrow if they wanted to?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Price, it's not what you say it is, it's what the market will bear.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I believe he was saying that it doesn't cost any more to send one bit than another. At least someone argued that. I believe that's also incorrect as not all data is located the same distance away and have to go through different variable number of routers on the backbone.

    Also, I'm bothered that these people aren't aware that they accuse us for shilling for ISPs, when they are literally shilling for Netflix.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I believe he was saying that it doesn't cost any more to send one bit than another.

    He did, and I responded to that. The volume of bits is what costs, and video uses geometrically more volume of bits than almost anything else. And there are different costs associated with moving bits within a discreet network then in or out of it. I say different, because neither are free.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, that is absolutely true as well.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is like that in tbe cost of meducal drugs. "A pill only costs 2 cents to manufacture!". Ignoring all the R&D and approval costs that were required for there to be a pill.to manufacture. They have rather simplified notuins about what goes into pricing, and what does not fit into their view is unreal and predatory.

  • Hunthjof||

    Like Trump is like Literally Hitler so we wanna give Trump like the power over the internet!

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Also appears to be excellent argument against one-size-fits-all medical insurance schemes.

  • ||

    That this is shared as an argument for net neutrality boggles the mind. Many Americans don't use the internet for video, email, gaming, and social media. They could see serious savings if internet access were sold piecemeal like this.

    Somewhere around the age of 5, I realized there were people for whom whole 'connect the word on the left with the picture on the right' a la Highlights magazine was hard. And not (necessarily) because they couldn't read or because they were dyslexic. Mentally drawing lines from left-to-right and keeping the two lists of ideas together was a challenge. Our oppressive world full of indexes, tables, and ledgers is a crippling impediment to them. I assume these are the people who understand this graphic.

  • Rich||

    Apparently the Lynx have been "throttled".

  • janon||

    Only in the backwater swamps of a libertarian wasteland does defending some of the most hated monopolies in history, the telco and cable monopolies, become a foregone conclusion and get equated with common sense.

    What would really be justice is if the FDA is eliminated next and you all get to start eating unregulated food. Let me guess... you'll "grow your own" or "the market will fix it" What a bunch of disingenuous assholes.

    Yeah, the likes of Verizon and Comcast, who have spent the last 30 years consolidating power, crushing competition, and building regional oligopolies, are going to do what's in the best interest of the consumer given unfettered power. Because that's *just* how things looked like they were going in 2015 when the decision was made to *pre-empt* their bad behavior.

    If conservatives paused for a *minute* in their mindless worship of "free markets", and stopped obsessing over "people gettin over", they *might* realize what morons they were being.

    The US already has some of *the lowest quality* and *highest cost* internet service *in the free world*. All thanks to *no* regulation, and *no* real limit on "free markets", up until 2015. So no. Everything wasn't "just fine" you morons.

    The assholes posting here ad nauseum are almost certainly carrier engineers protecting their bonus, but because it fits the libtardarian view, of course people swallow the full load of it.

  • ||

    oohh ohhh me first!

    I don't recall this troll, so probably just responding to a ghost, but I'll take on one of the many little nuggets of idiocy:

    are going to do what's in the best interest of the consumer given unfettered power

    Please point to 1 instance where any company anywhere ever did anything that specifically should have been prevented under a proper "net neutrality" regulatory system.

  • Psion||

    How about Comcast forging packets to cut off legitimate Internet traffic back in early 2007? They were sending out forged reset packets to cause P2P file transfers to end prematurely. Linux users noticed this when they suddenly lost the ability to torrent distributions through some of Comcast's networks.

    Or hijacking DNS and HTTP transmissions to interfere with search results and redirect customers to the websites of paying affiliates by companies like Paxfire and FairEagle. Are you comfortable with typing in a search request about Toro mowers and getting instead sent to a John Deere website?

    How about restricting the types of services one can run on their ISP accounts? I run several servers on a variety of machines both locally and remotely. I had one ISP abruptly cut out port 80 hosting on me back in 2004 because they didn't think their users wanted to do anything more than browse the Web or send email. The correct response to this is to move on to a different provider, but that isn't easy with early cancellation clauses. A disruption like this could bring down a service for days before it is sorted.

    And why? They are just *packets* of data. Who they go to and what is in them is absolutely irrelevant to an ISP! The only thing they care about internally is how many their customers are consuming. This isn't about keeping ISPs from expanding or doing business efficiently ... it's about keeping them from interfering with communications between a client and a server.

  • ||

    NONE of which would have been prevented by the NN rules. But you'd know that if you actually read them.

    They are just *packets* of data. Who they go to and what is in them is absolutely irrelevant to an ISP!

    Which shows how little you know about network management. They absolutely care about who they go to and what is in them. It's called proper network management, a key piece of the internet.

  • ||

    If it's not a control packet, what's in it is none of their business, and in any case might well be encrypted. Where they go within their network is part of their business, and that's about it.

  • Hunthjof||

    "How about Comcast forging packets to cut off legitimate Internet traffic back in early 2007? They were sending out forged reset packets to cause P2P file transfers to end prematurely. Linux users noticed this when they suddenly lost the ability to torrent distributions through some of Comcast's networks."

    If you remember companies like Sony were threatening to sue ISP's to block p2p transfers or force the FCC to create rules on ISP's to prevent p2p transfers to prevent pirating of music and movies. So if a company got ahead of the game and did it on their own that shouldn't be a surprise. So we almost got that with every ISP via the FCC.

    "Or hijacking DNS and HTTP transmissions to interfere with search results and redirect customers to the websites of paying affiliates by companies like Paxfire and FairEagle. Are you comfortable with typing in a search request about Toro mowers and getting instead sent to a John Deere website?"

    You know who else did this by manipulating search results to customers who paid or to websites that they agreed with? Google. Funny how Google one of the biggest advocates for NN did exactly the thing you are using as justification for NN. Not only did they do it they at first denied they were doing it then said well it was their page and their right to.

  • DarrenM||

    Look up "straw man". You give some very good examples.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What would really be justice is if the FDA is eliminated next and you all get to start eating unregulated food. Let me guess... you'll "grow your own" or "the market will fix it" What a bunch of disingenuous assholes.

    I know how deeply unaware of libertarian discussion from this post. That's something that's discussed fairly regularly and advocated for. You then posit it as an ironic consequence we as libertarians wouldn't foresee.

  • Chip Woodier||

    Also, he doesn't seem to realize that most food...the vast majority of foods...are never inspected by government and are thus de facto unregulated. We have food companies that shut down entire factories for contamination, not because of government regulation, but because news of contamination hurts their brand.

  • ||

    -- and because they can get (1) sued, (2) they can be more stringently and expensively regulated, and (3) they want some regulation to preserve public trust in the kind of products they sell, instead of being forced into a race to the bottom. It's not just marketing behavior.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "What would really be justice is if the FDA is eliminated next and you all get to start eating unregulated food."

    Because, as everybody knows, the way to guarantee an increasing market share is to poison your customers. Duh.

  • CE||

    Unregulated food would be cheaper. So would unregulated medicine.

    Ratings agencies can exist outside the government.

  • CE||

    Not to mention that the FDA keeps life-saving medications off the market for years because they might be dangerous. Hello, death is dangerous too.

  • Hunthjof||

    Are you kidding it isn't like we have a private organization who companies end their products to to be tested and get their seal of approval that consumers look for. Oh wait we do Underwriters Laboratory.

  • ||

    The question is who pays for them. A lot of business communities would like the citizen schmucks to foot the bill.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Only in the backwater swamps of a libertarian wasteland does defending some of the most hated monopolies in history, the telco and cable monopolies, become a foregone conclusion and get equated with common sense.

    This is literally - LITERALLY - 180 degrees from the truth.

    No one is defending these monopolies except net neutrality proponents. 'Net Neutrality' is a means of protecting these monopolies by hiding their deleterious effects.

    Every libertarian on here would be ECSTATIC if the government stopped creating and enforcing these monopolies on the American people. It's kind of our thing, objecting to forced government collectivization.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Goddamned squirrels, forcing me to forget to close my italics brackets.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Beyond the annoying and often repeated idea that if we're against net neutrality (The recently repealed version being a tremendously large bundle of regulation and government controls beyond what people keep asserting NN is) that we're shilling for the ISPs.

    And then you see them tell us we're shilling for Corps, while I see many of them explicitly shilling for Netflix.

  • Hunthjof||

    Exactly this is just one group of corps in a p$%sing contest with another. Except one group of corps managed to convince a large group of people that they are poor victims.

  • FreshPots||

    "No one is defending these monopolies except net neutrality proponents. 'Net Neutrality' is a means of protecting these monopolies by hiding their deleterious effects."

    I am very skeptical of NN but I don't understand this argument. If NN protects corporate monopolies then can you please explain why are those same corporations have funneled millions into lobbying against it? Reverse psychology, perhaps? Or do you think they're just stupid?

  • Sevo||

    "then can you please explain why are those same corporations have funneled millions into lobbying against it?"

    Which corporations did that? Perhaps the same. Perhaps you could do some research.

  • Sevo||

    Replace "Perhaps the same" with:
    Perhaps they are not the same corporations.

  • FreshPots||

    Is Comcast not one of the incumbent monopolies? I'm not going to dig up all of the disclosure forms for you. Here is just one, albeit only for $20k, but there are many more out there: http://soprweb.senate.gov/inde.....gTypeID=51

    Moreover, most if not all of the corporations in question have released multiple public statements in firm opposition to Title II, despite the obvious negative PR consequences of doing so.

    http://www.verizon.com/about/n.....-broadband

  • Sevo||

    FreshPots|11.23.17 @ 7:51PM|#
    "Is Comcast not one of the incumbent monopolies?"

    No, it is not a monopoly.
    Perhaps that's the reason you don't know what you're posting about; there are no monopolies.

  • FreshPots||

    Reason limits me to 2 links per post and flags longer links as "words longer than 50 words" but these companies have made no secret of their opposition to Title II. "Perhaps you could do some research."

  • H. Farnham||

    "Verizon and Comcast.. are going to do what's in the best interest of the consumer..."

    I can only speak for myself, but I never expect any company to do what's in the best interest of the consumer. I expect companies to act in their own best interest, and, in turn, for consumers to act in their own best interest. Things usually seem to work out pretty decent under that dynamic.

    Maybe I'm just one of the lucky few who have never been held down and brutally raped by all these evil corporations.

  • Sevo||

    And, strangely enough, those same corporations PAY people on a weekly or semi-weekly schedule for doing this thing called "work".
    I'm betting janon has yet to become familiar with that activity.

  • Sevo||

    janon|11.22.17 @ 4:48PM|#
    "Only in the backwater swamps of a libertarian wasteland does defending some of the most hated monopolies in history, the telco and cable monopolies, become a foregone conclusion and get equated with common sense."

    Yes, 'defending' those who deliver the goods we want is really only done in 'backwaters'. The same 'backwaters' which despise lefty assholes like you.
    Buzz off.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The assholes posting here ad nauseum are almost certainly carrier engineers protecting their bonus, but because it fits the libtardarian view, of course people swallow the full load of it.

    I was going to respond then I saw this.

    Now I know you work for Hulu, so yeah, not going to entertain anything you say.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Funny how those provincial Americans with their twine and tin cup internet completely dominate the global internet (unless you consider the Blizzcon powerhouse of Seoul). Name a single non-US major internet corporation that isn't a complete clone of a US corp and supported by the Chinese government. Go ahead, we'll wait.

    And it's stupid government ass lickers like yourself with you government mandated local monopolies who have created those comcasts which you despise so much and are being the precious useful idiots for their spiritual successors like google and facebook.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Oh no, we are 11th. Hey, you'll also notice that all these countries are small that are a head of us.

    Fixed Broadband by Speed test
    Rank Country Download Mbps
    1 - Singapore 148.62
    2 - Hong Kong (SAR) 137.40
    3 - Iceland 134.80
    4 - South Korea 108.89
    5 - Romania 97.70
    6 +6 Netherlands 87.04
    7 -1 Macau (SAR) 86.37
    8 -1 Sweden 79.06
    9 -1 Switzerland 77.24
    10 - Hungary 76.99
    11 -2 United States 74.68
    12 -1 Lithuania 71.85
    13 - Denmark 70.29
    14 +1 Norway 68.01
    15 -1 Japan 67.02
    16 +2 Canada 63.20
    17 - New Zealand 62.09
    18 -2 Jersey 61.66
    19 +2 Luxembourg 61.57
    20 - France 61.34
    21 -2 Spain 60.53
    22 +1 Belgium 54.25
    23 -1 China 54.25
    24 +2 Portugal 52.29
    25 +8 Reunion 51.98

  • Hunthjof||

    Interesting yet you always hear we are some backwater when it comes to speed. Though it appears population density doesn't have an impact since I see several above and below us above us. I do find it funny that while there are EU countries above us there are some below us and they have NN.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    "The assholes posting here ad nauseum"

    Why do you keep posting here then?

  • Rat on a train||

    So the people wanting ISPs to be treated like a public utility want to return to metered billing?

  • Doug Heffernan||

    The graphic is silly.

    ISPs wanted the rules lifted in order to squeeze content providers on the other end of the connection, not (as much) to squeeze consumers directly.

    The ISPs can't be too thrilled about new enhanced transparency rules which force them to reveal the newly squeezed.

    More ISP competition would be nice but wired overbuilds are fiercely challenged by incumbents (if not prohibited by local rules/agreements) and the wireless spectrum/market isn't quite there yet for continuous use broadband. Google and facebook have enough bank to overcome these hurdles with lots of local bribery and kickbacks, so there is some hope for more ISPs eventually.

    In the medium term ISPs and content providers will be "forced" to team up. Over time, the continually renewed paid prioritization agreements by this new duopoly will ratchet up prices the same way it has happened in the cable/satellite industry.

    That will incentivize more corporate consolidation. Then the nirvana of take-it-or-leave it rent seeking is at hand.

  • Sevo||

    "The graphic is silly."

    Yeah, it points out that price-fixing is silly, right?
    And we know those darn ISPs are after YOU!

  • mtrueman||

    "Then the nirvana of take-it-or-leave it rent seeking is at hand."

    Most here have no problem with rent-seeking monopolies. Others will deny their existence.

  • Sevo||

    "Most here have no problem with rent-seeking monopolies. Others will deny their existence."

    Trueman can't read or is a liar.

  • MarkLastname||

    Both are demonstrably true.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Why would a monopoly need to seek rents? Can't they just charge whatever they like?

  • Bra Ket||

    Perhaps he means they have a monopoly on the rent-seeking market.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    He did say "rent-seeking monopolies", which would mean there'd have to be more than one. If there are more than one, are they monopolies? ;)

  • Sevo||

    It's also entirely possible that trueman is doing what trueman does so well:

    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    You can look it up!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Get those talking points straight from netflix? Yes, they want to "squeeze" the content providers who are using disproportionate amounts of bandwidth. There is nothing at all tranparent about net neutrality.

    Oh, and pointing out that government rules cause reduced competition while calling for yet more government action is a nice touch

  • Sevo||

    Hey, NAS, how much freight do you think Elon's trucks will carry after deducting the battery weight from the legal max?

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Nothing in my previous remarks calls for more government action. I think it is just fine to let all of this play out with the rules lifted.

    It is difficult to deny (although plenty here do) that there is a lot of market power at the consumer end of the last mile of the the internet. With the rules lifted, ISPs would be stupid not to leverage that power for the maximum profit that the market will bear, the same way MSOs have done in the past in the cable/satellite industry.

    In the medium term this will cause an additional barrier to new entrants in high-bandwidth applications (primarily video). Perhaps you will say that new entrants in the past had been subsidized by the ISPs. But still, new entrants will probably need more capital to negotiate paid prioritization agreements with each individual ISP in each and every market. The universality of the internet for high bandwidth applications is likely to be less universal in the medium term.

    The likes of netflix, amazon and google are unlikley to put up much of a fight in the medium term. Ponying up to the ISPs is a small price to pay in order to cement in their strong incumbent dominance over any potential new entrants. Netflix has already done this, and the market seems able to bear price increases to support them doing more of these agreements.

    So, let the market have at it. ISPs primary business over the short term will be negotiating agreements for stuff that has already been built. That is a sweet position to be in.

  • Sevo||

    Poor Doug! He's hoping some NGO will step in and keep him from paying those evuuuul kkkorparashuns what it costs to get what he wants.
    Yes, folks, nothing here about 'government action'.
    Why are lefties such blatant liars?

  • Doug Heffernan||

    No government action was mentioned. You're the lair for saying I mentioned any, even implicitly - and definitely not blatantly. Because I explicitly said the opposite.

    I'm interested in pragmatic assessment only. My comments are an attempt to predict market reactions to the lifting of these rules. I'm in the traditional MSO industry. Rightly or wrongly, there are opportunities to cash in with the lifting of these rules, and I want my clients and myself to be on the positive side of this cashing in.

    I think there is an argument to be made by those that entered the market assuming rules that wouldn't drastically change.The old rules were that any user just had to pay for bandwidth on the sending side. I grant their may have been subsidization under these rules. But those were the rules.

    I'm happy to adapt to new rules, because of the opportunities, however destructive they may be in the short to medium term. In the long term it will sort out to whatever it will be. My prediction is that however it settles out, their will be more curation by the power players in the industry and very different innovation. But definitely less subsidization, which seems to be the primary focus of everyone here. So, celebrate that but don't curse those trying to brace for the interim pragmatics.

    It is inconsistent to say, at one and the same time, that there will little change from the lifting of these rules and also that that there will be greatly reduced subsidization.

  • Sevo||

    Doug Heffernan|11.23.17 @ 1:19AM|#
    "No government action was mentioned. You're the lair for saying I mentioned any, even implicitly - and definitely not blatantly. Because I explicitly said the opposite."

    Oh, I never said you "mentioned" it; you just want to mystical force to keep those horrible KKKorparashins in line.

  • FreshPots||

    "Oh, and pointing out that government rules cause reduced competition while calling for yet more government action is a nice touch"

    The problem is that most of those government rules that reduced competition are at the local/municipal level. Since we can't really count on those local officials to do anything meaningful to change that situation, the only way to wipe out those rules across the board is to take some kind of "government action" at a higher level.

  • Sevo||

    "Since we can't really count on those local officials to do anything meaningful to change that situation, the only way to wipe out those rules across the board is to take some kind of "government action" at a higher level."

    Perhaps, but price fixing (AKA Net Neutrality) isn't going to help.

  • bud||

    I don't know why the writer was surprised by the "chart" .. he should know liberals and math don't mix..

  • Finrod||

    Because math is "racist" or some other such stupid shit,

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    To go back to the 'cost' of moving huge amounts of bits simultaneously, I'm going to tell you all a story about a little company called Blizzard Entertainment who wrote an app called World of Warcraft.

    Blizzard found themselves with literally jillions of subscribers, and they needed to send out patches every tuesday, in the order of hundreds of megabytes each to tens of millions of subscribers.

    Their conundrum was this:

    1. Invest in the capacity to host and allow millions of users each download patches from Blizzard servers which would total petabytes of data moving simultaneously on Tuesday evening.
    2. Let the ISPs shoulder the burden.

    After a brief meeting in the executive washroom, neckbeard hipster Blizzard employee A and B immediately agreed. Fuck that investment, let the ISPs shoulder it. Harness the haxxing power of the Bittorrents, and seed the initial download from Blizzard servers at a fraction of the cost, then let the army of blizzard kids living in their mother's basements peer-to-peer that shit for the rest of it, and keep the love within the ISP network and infrastructure. *HIGH FIVE*

    And they headed off to their favorite artisan beer joint to meet up with the Net Neutrality supporting Slashdot friends.

  • Hunthjof||

    No matter how many times you tell stories like this the neckbeard hipsters don't care. They think they are somehow sticking to the man with NN. However they simply are just helping other corporations out. It isn't indy websites that are crying the loudest but large corporate types. Funny Google demands NN yet they have no such treatment for search results.

  • Psion||

    Um ... in your example, Blizzard servers *were* hosting the patches. Nothing gets hosted on an ISP, all the ISP does is provide the connection to the Internet. And when the demand for that goes up, the number of packets sent and received through the Blizzard ISP also goes up. By distributing the patches through torrents, they actually *REDUCED* the load on Blizzard's ISP by distributing it through a network of customer servers, each of whom used their own ISPs. If any of those customers exceeded bandwidth expectations, then the ISP is well within their rights to charge for the extra bandwidth, but by using a distributed approach, the load on any one server (and ISP) is hugely reduced. That's the whole point of torrenting.

  • Bra Ket||

    The pro arguments ultimately boil down to "I want some high-performance capabilities or features no one else wants, and I don't want to pay extra like I should, so everyone should be forced to pay for it too".

  • Hunthjof||

    That seems to be the sentiment I see. The others are people who think there are some great websites being held down by the man. I just tell them google Net Neutrality it took me three pages before I found a site against it. Pretty sure if the man was suppressing websites those would be at the top.

  • Bra Ket||

    Some funny stuff on that twitter feed. People saying the graphic is bad and it should have more stuff and a higher total price to be "accurate". Because without net neutrality the internet will cost more. But... if they want to charge more why don't they just charge more for the total now?

  • Brian||

    It seems like democrats are frequently inept social engineers, thinking they know better than everyone else, yet forcing everyone into a limited set of choices that leave actually smart people much worse off than they would have been otherwise.

    Now, if only I could find an example... wait... it'll come to me...

  • KateBrook||

    Unlike in case of a persuasive essay, while writing narrative essay, students do not need to provide the analysis of some burning and controversial issues. Besides, they do not need to compare and contrast ideas. As a rule, it should be a story about any moment of one's life. Nevertheless, this absence of stringent requirements is illusory. The paper still should meet specific criteria. Also, they should comply with a common structure of a narrative essay model. Narrative essay examples online usually include a gripping introduction, description of setting, interesting plot and characters, as well as a conflict. Of course, there should be a thesis too in order to present an argument behind the text. If you didn't have a chance to see these components in a good essay, you may buy narrative essay models or professional narrative essay at the website of our essay writing service.

  • Stephen54321||

    Do net neutrality advocates fear consumer choice?

    That line is ridiculous. It is like a person who favours introducing Russian roulette claiming that those who argue against Russian roulette "fear consumer choice".

    Too damn right they do!

    I would also point out that the article's graphic is misleading. There is more to the Internet than email, gaming, social media, and video.

    For example, just exactly which category does reason.com fit into? It offers news commentary, podcasts, and videos. Will access to reason.com's videos require paying for a different package from the one allowing access to its commentary?

    And what happens if its content is not part of ANY package?

    After all, the "social media" package is unlikely to offer access to ALL social media websites. Just those willing to pay the ISP the thirty pieces of silver required to be part of that package.

    Which in turn is going to cost reason.com money. Money it will need to either absurd or they to recover from visitors to the site. Furthermore, what happens if it can't afford to pay EVERY internet service provider the fees they require? Will it fold up and go out of business through lack of patronage or will it be forced to add a paywall to pay the bills?

  • josh||

    "That line is ridiculous. It is like a person who favours introducing Russian roulette claiming that those who argue against Russian roulette "fear consumer choice"."

    ummm....

  • Bra Ket||

    "After all, the "social media" package is unlikely to offer access to ALL social media websites. Just those willing to pay the ISP the thirty pieces of silver required to be part of that package.

    Which in turn is going to cost reason.com money. Money it will need to either absurd or they to recover from visitors to the site. Furthermore, what happens if it can't afford to pay EVERY internet service provider the fees they require? Will it fold up and go out of business through lack of patronage or will it be forced to add a paywall to pay the bills?"

    Parents would prefer this as they can prevent unlimited access to/by their children online.

    And what would probably happen in that scenario is instead of reason paying to be hosted by some hosting service that simply makes their site available to search engines or people they personally tell their url to, they would pay to have it hosted by one of the "package providers" that people can opt to use. No reason why operating in this mode versus another one would cost more. That's you making doomsday predictions without evidence. This is essentially what social media is anyway.

    Similarly, everyone imagining the horror of amazon being the only option (which of course wouldn't be the case) fail to notice that anyone can sell through them, similar to ebay. I've sold stuff on both those sites. Way cheaper way to go than making my own ebiz site. These "limited" options are actually unlimited.

  • Magnitogorsk||

    ISPs have complete control over what you view on the internet. Net neutrality means that they aren't allowed to use this unique position to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Just like Microsoft wasn't allowed to intentionally make their competitors software run shittily on their operating system. Somehow this has been completely lost and you have people arguing in circles about pricing plans and infrastructure and other unrelated shit

  • Hunthjof||

    Search engines have complete control over the content shown. I demand search engine neutrality. Somehow I doubt any of the "free and open" internet types would support that.

  • Hunthjof||

    BTW we already have a government agency called the Federal Trade Commission which is where anti-compeditive behavior can be dealt with.

  • Sevo||

    Magnitogorsk|11.23.17 @ 12:23PM|#
    "ISPs have complete control over what you view on the internet. Net neutrality means that they aren't allowed to use this unique position to engage in anti-competitive behavior. Just like Microsoft wasn't allowed to intentionally make their competitors software run shittily on their operating system. Somehow this has been completely lost and you have people arguing in circles about pricing plans and infrastructure and other unrelated shit."

    You, and other lefty assholes, are wasting our time showing your total ignorance of the issues and your inability to understand A-1 considerations.
    You can go get your tin-foil hat on Aisle 6, you idiot.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    On that note: I don't want ISPs snooping on my internet traffic and I don't want government snooping on my internet traffic.

  • josh||

    Let's be serious now. This is a conversation about what we want the government to do. And it has to be something, because otherwise we'll all die.

  • Hunthjof||

    Lets really be serious this is a conversation about a pissing contest between two groups of corporations and which one the pro NN people want us to support. Google versus Time Warner Netflix versus Comcast. This has nothing to do with keeping a free and open internet it is a group of well funded hipsters trying to play off fears of "EVIL ISPS" gonna ruin the internet.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    If we don't do Net Neutrality now, AOL Time Warner will own the entire internet and make you give them your kidneys just to watch their own brand of boring skinemax fake porn, which they are already well on their way of doing.

    You stupid fuckers are going to destroy the best information tool humanity has ever seen, all because you fail to embrace the eternal, constant truths from century old Upton Sinclair novels, which are destined to become your reality! If it weren't for the government, your products would be getting worse and worse, not better!

    God you people drive me crazy, you're so stupid! Wake up, sheeple!

  • Hunthjof||

    Like Corporations like run the government. So lets like Give the government like more power cause like the Government is like all cool and stuff" You people kill me. Last week Trump is Hitler now you morons want to give the same government you swear is run by the big corps the power to run the internet, control speech and have all the guns.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Government is the only thing keeping us from living in HellCorp!

  • Mark22||

    I'm assuming that your post is sarcasm; nobody could be that stupid, right?

  • sungazer||

    The plans are arbitrary money grabs. It costs an ISP no more money to give you access to some websites over others, but they will bundle and sell it that way, making for a less competitive ecosystem. ISP's limiting access to varying sites is flatly a bullshit money grab with some general fucked up marketing, and they're going to do exactly that. It's not going to increase competition and the end products are simply inferior products that decrease competition in other markets. It is very hard to imagine scenarios where a company not conforming to network neutrality, and the providers aren't planning or offering anything "better" without the rules. Your internet speed is not going to get faster just because AT&T can throttle your neighbors FaceTime conversation to make it unusable. The simplest and most effective ways of managing peak traffic don't involve ISP's cherry picking website winners. The business model for anti net neutrality is exactly the same as that of a mob boss demanding money for doing business on their turf, or bad stuff will happen, unless the mob boss already "owns" your market.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    ISP's limiting access to varying sites

    You still haven't shown you have a clue about how a network is managed. Funny how the argument migrated from "Netflix is having its data throttled!!" to "Comcast will keep you from accessing the site!!"

    Seriously, stop making shit up.

    The simplest and most effective ways of managing peak traffic don't involve ISP's cherry picking website winners.

    No, it involves prioritizing data so I don't have to subsidize your content demand.

  • Bra Ket||

    "The plans are arbitrary money grabs."

    The plans are completely fantasy dreamed up by some pro-net-neutrality congressman to scare people.

    There's really no use arguing about what should be done because the stupid policy is gone. All you're doing is making predictions as to what happens next. The awesome thing is we will get to see how those predictions play out. I will look forward to your apology and conversion to libertarianism in a few years after your doomsday scenario has not come true.

  • Bra Ket||

    And by the way, the reason cable TV had and has packages is because they actually have to purchase the content to resell to you. And those selling the content did so in packages. It was not data on demand like the internet, they had to connect to satellites to get it, so it made sense to do in big groups of channels rather than individually. Also the technology is such that all channels were piped to every house and they had to use a switch in your cable box to disable/enable stuff.

    It's a totally different system and technology, and hence stupid to use as a basis for your predictions. Cable companies weren't going to give you HBO for free when they had to pay to offer it. If google/amazon/etc started charging your ISP, then the ISP would turn around and charge you.

  • Hunthjof||

    Thank you. I have had that same conversation myself. But it doesn't matter it usually ends with 'MUh COMCAST BLOCKS NETFLIX."

  • Mark22||

    It costs an ISP no more money to give you access to some websites over others

    That's completely untrue. It costs them a lot more money to give you access to content on other people's networks than on their own. It costs them different amounts to give you access to content on some peers than on others. It costs them a lot more money to give you access to content they can't cache than to content they can cache. It costs them a lot more money to provide the QoS needed for uninterrupted streaming than for E-mail service. Furthermore, since they can't easily have volume-based pricing anymore, it costs them a lot more to have a customer who uses Netflix than a customer who uses just E-mail.

    So, stop making shit up and start understanding how the Internet actually works.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    On the Corporate side Net Neutrality is a cover for getting the State to make the internet predictable. They've seen businesses they thought were solid founder and go down with each shift in the way people use the Net, and they're scared they'll be next. On the government side, it's desperate attempt to come up with an excuse for getting control of the Net before the nice, cozy world that is already falling down around their ears completely goes away. The Political establishment has to be scared to death of what happened in 2016; the Little People rose up in wrath and said "F*ck all of y'all, we're electing an outsider.". What the Net had to do with that is, perhaps, debatable, but they don't understand it, it doesn't behave itself the way the Media does, and Trump is using it (badly) to end-run around them, their Media lapdogs, and they canned soundbites. The Republican establishment is, if anything, more scared than the Democrats; enough populists like Trump get elected to Congress and they might have to get of their fat-slabbed backsides and actually do some work.

  • Hunthjof||

    Exactly the Net is bringing down the dinosaur media types as well. Do we think that memogate was the first time Rather stretched the truth? Hardly but it was the first time Tim a retired IBM technician in Hobokan NJ could get on the net and tell everyone that typeset didn't exist when those memos were written.(That is just a fictional thoery BTW) The media is running scared now as well or worse shocked the world isn't letting them be the gate keepers of information. Makes me wonder how many things Murrow and Cronkite put out that were inaccurate or down right lies but we couldn't catch them.

  • Sevo||

    Certainly not directly analogous, but any reading of WWII history tells you the media of the time were, shall we say, 'flexible' in its (their?) reporting.
    Yes, there were real national security issues and some of that 'flexibility' was aimed at saving Allied lives, but I have a hard time believing that those habits ended abruptly on 9/2/45.

  • Hunthjof||

    Tet Offensive a perfect example. Everyone knew it was a disaster for the NVA but it was reported as a victory for them.

  • Mark22||

    On the Corporate side Net Neutrality is a cover for getting the State to make the internet predictable

    It's simpler than that: companies like Google, Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook would be in deep trouble once ISPs can start filtering out their ads or charging extra for the bandwidth required for streaming.

    That's in addition to the point you're making, namely that corporations want the Internet controlled and regulated by the federal government as much as possible in order to be able gain advantages through lobbying and rent seeking.

  • Eman||

    is this article insinuating that people who think greedy capitalists pose the biggest threat to people getting what they want from the internet we all love so much are kind of dumb? or is it just saying it outright?

  • Mark22||

    People are still missing the real reason why tech giants are pushing for net neutrality: without it, the business models of companies like Google, YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook are in the toilet. Since consumers don't want to see ads, ISPs can just filter them out or charge companies like Google extra if not bound by net neutrality. And when E-mail users are not forced to subsidize Netflix and YouTube, users of those streaming services end up having to pay for the actual cost of their bandwidth.

  • Hunthjof||

    "But Muh my Netflix" LOL but it isn't just the corps. Every time I have seen people argue it usually devolves to someone saying "Comcast will block or charge me for my Netflix" The people who cry about Comcast blocking p2p applications seem to forget that Sony and others were lobbying very hard to have the FCC force ISP's from blocking such sites or they were gonna sue the ISP's to stop it. All in the name of anti-piracy.

  • freedomwriter||

    What is stopping providers form offering different tiers of speeds or different tiers of amounts used?

  • Dan S.||

    Well, reason.com is not video, e-mail, gaming, or social media, is it? If people paid for, and received, only those services, where would it leave sites like this? You say that would never happen, I hope you're right.

  • Mark22||

    Here are some more things proto-socialists like you can worry about:

    "What if all those capitalists decided to stop selling flour and potatoes, where would I get my starches? We need food-neutrality for grocery stores!"

    "What if all stores decided not to sell Apple products anymore, where would I get my iPhone? We need phone OS neutrality for electronics stores!"

    Your worries are idiotic. And even if those were reasonable things to worry about, we could address them when they actually happen; we don't need to fix problems that don't exist yet.

  • V. Long||

    You are suggesting that we wait until ISPs start abusing the system, then we'll react and try to retroactively put in place a basic framework of how ISPs should behave... Absent any framework provided by Title II - I don't see how you are going to get the toothpaste back in the tube.

    The FCC's implementation of Title II was rather mild -- they chose not to implement most of the things that could have caused too great a demand on ISPs. This is just a framework that assures that they act in a just and reasonable manner.

    If the entire country had several providers to choose from, competition might be enough to make this a moot argument; but that is not the case. We need Title II to keep this from being a situation where we are stuck eating whatever they feed us, like dogs.

  • babyowl53||

    I'm guessing you guys don't understand that once non-neutrality happens, they can charge absolutely anything they wish and you either pay or go without.

  • Sevo||

    "I'm guessing you guys don't understand that once non-neutrality happens, they can charge absolutely anything they wish and you either pay or go without."

    I'm guessing you're some infantile twit whose mommy always bought you what you want.
    Yes, they will charge, and yes, I can go without if I don't like it. So what?

  • Mark22||

    You could worry about the same thing for any other product; it's a ridiculous argument. Also, we are simply returning the Internet to what it was like until a few years ago.

  • wfergus42||

    Jeez, you are misinformed.

  • josh||

    God forbid that a business be able to act like one.

  • ||

    I have not read the entire list of comments, so excuse me if someone has already mentioned this fact. Viewing the table in the article, I pay WAY to much of internet, consequently, I also like to stream videos, play online video games, I work at home (online math teacher) and I love Facebook, snap chat, twitter etc.

    However, I also have a smart phone, with unlimited data. This means I pay about $55 a month for internet at home another $60 a month for unlimited cell phone data. That is over $100, and I know people that pay a lot more. Therefore, with NN, I would simply use my cell phone for social media, e-mail and even streaming movies (using google chrome cast). The only reason for having internet at home would be for gaming, which will reduce that bill to about $18 a month, saving me a lot of money.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Therefore, with NN,

    Uh, you were already paying separate charges with NN for phone and home internet. That's part of what makes the graphic so stupid, is that its claims are entirely speculative.

    Anyway, I don't give a shit if I have to pay an extra $5-8 a month for Netflix to set up proprietary pipes for their bandwidth-hogging service, because I have a job.

  • Sevo||

    "Anyway, I don't give a shit if I have to pay an extra $5-8 a month for Netflix to set up proprietary pipes for their bandwidth-hogging service, because I have a job."

    Well, you are welcome to pay for free-riders as you please, but since you're hoping the government collects the same from ME at gun-point and I do give a shit, I hope you'll be pleased to pay MY $5-8/mo, along with that amount for everyone else who chooses not to.
    IOWs, fuck off, slaver. What a narcissistic scum-bag.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You probably should have tried reading the rest of my posts in this thread and the one from the 21stin particular before hitting "submit," because now you're just randomly lashing out.

    The whole reason Netflix users are crying about this is because they're afraid they'll have to pay more if Netflix buys proprietary channels for their data--in that instance, *those costs won't get passed on to you, just Netflix customers,* because *they'll* be the ones paying more to compensate for the bandwidth costs. As it should be. The torrent nerds are crying about it because they think it will be harder to pirate movies. These are hardly sympathetic people.

    So no, I don't give a shit if Netflix customers have to pay more if Netflix ends up buying proprietary channels under this situation. It means they're not hogging the rest of the network and Grandma can check her email without Netflix and the torrent users crowding her out.

  • Sevo||

    My apologies; I understood this to be the commenter's lack of concern for over-paying should be applied to all.
    And I figured someone had stolen your handle to post such.

  • josh||

    "The saddest part about all of this, is that the people who oppose Net Neutrality overwhelmingly never understand what it actually means."

    Got this from elsewhere. Sometimes someone comes along, and without intending to, gives you some levity to make your day a little brighter.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    If you don't understand why Net Neutrality is a bad idea, you also probably don't understand why healthcare, housing, and college tuition are too expensive. And you probably think that the minimum wage is a good idea.

  • V. Long||

    Enlighten me.

    Why should my ISP get to charge me for 1GB of Netflix than 1GB of MSNBC (which is owned by NBC /Comcast / Universal)? The notion of something being "too expensive" is a gripe, not an argument. Too expensive compared to what? Not having internet? Having really slow internet?

    I get that ISPs are in it to make money and I get that time is worth money -- that's why we pay more for faster access to greater amounts of data. You lose me when you start saying that NN is a bad idea and that it should be OK for ISPs to block, throttle, or filter my access to data based on CONTENT.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The FCC has to gain control of the internet so they can finally contain the outbreak of Janet Jackson's nipple.

  • 153GreatFish-dot-com||

    Net Neutrality was Obama's gift to GOOGLE APPLE and California Dems for their online support.
    Get real people....evil is evil

  • V. Long||

    Ok, I'll bite 153 (excuse the bad fish pun), How is NN Obama's gift to Google, Apple and Cali Dems?

    Google stopped building out their ISP network, Apple would (theoretically) be paying more to ISPs to deliver content to consumers... The rest is just irrelevant mention of people you disagree with.

    If anything this is a gift to Charter, Comcast, AT&T, et al who are connecting us to the internet (largely funded and developed by taxpayers). These ISPs don't own the Internet -- they just want to be able to control what you see of it and profit. I am all for ISPs making a profit - I just don't want them to be the ones deciding that a gig of Netflix is worth more than a Gig of MSNBC.

  • icewater||

    I'll refrain from commenting on just what a disaster I expect this to be until the market has had a chance to provide multiple broadband providers nation-wide who don't track me online and then sell my data to marketers (or worse), nor thwart my reasonable efforts to proxy out of their electronic abuse of my privacy.

    But I expect this to be the beginning of the count-down of Nick Gillespie constructing his rationalizations for why the net suddenly sucking beyond words is somehow a great thing. He will probably use the word "flourish" in there a few times.

  • Mike d||

    I agree with the libertarian platform roughly 75% of the time. This is one of the 25%.

    No, I don't think we should scrap net neutrality. No, I don't think that ISP's should get to discriminate / pick and choose how to classify certain sites as categories, especially when there's gray area. I mean, for example, who'se to say that reason.com, slate.com, etc, would suddenly get reclassified as "social media" vs "news site", arbitrarily, on the drop of the hat (possibly because they once said something that offended the CEO of an ISP). Hey, they have a comment section, so charge them X more. And they don't delete offensive comments fast enough, so theres an extra charge for that. At some point, it would become de-facto censorship. I mean, ok, yeah, its not the government censoring stuff, its private companies, but given how large they are it doesn't make it any less bad.

    Now, to be fair; on the other hand. ISPs charging different amounts for the **quantity** of total used data and/or time of day based on congestion, I think that should be fair game.

  • freedomwriter||

    There is nothing stopping providers from offering different speed packages.

  • wfergus42||

    Ed Krayewski is lying when he says that Net Neutrality didn't exist in 2014. The only thing that changed was that internet providers, per the instructions of the courts, had to be designated as "common carriers" if the FCC wished to enforce net neutrality.

  • freedomwriter||

    Providers can already sell whatever speed they want. For example my provider refuses to sell less than 50MbPS, no matter how much you need. If they wanted to sell different tiers of MbPS there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

    So this is all smoke and mirrors for another purpose. I think that purpose is to charge content providers like Netflix fees not to throttle them.

  • freedomwriter||

    There is nothing stopping them from providing different GB tiers either.

  • freedomwriter||

    Providers can already sell whatever speed they want. For example my provider refuses to sell less than 50MbPS, no matter how much you need. If they wanted to sell different tiers of MbPS there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

    So this is all smoke and mirrors for another purpose. I think that purpose is to charge content providers like Netflix fees not to throttle them.

  • Pedestrian||

    Where does the great and glorious 'consumer choice' come in. Ma Bell and local utilities are or were regulated monopolies.

    The wires for telephone and the first and continuing requirement for the Internet...is the pipeline to your house, installed decades ago at the cost of the provider then. (Ma Bell) It is this pipeline that holds all of their use as what became known as a common carrier and regulated as such. I think title 7 of the tele. act of 1930.

    Without net neutrality, the govt. turns over that last part of that pipeline to the big corp. There will be consumer choice alright but at a very hefty price.

    Look forward to Internet $100/month bills or more itemized similar to phone bills with long distance and text charges. The ISP's will know in short order where you browse and in time the chart becomes a lie. They will charge you for every minute of browsing where you like to browse or it's in your new $100/month Internet bill.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online