EmilyStrode

I admit to being totally ignorant on both net neutrality and ending net neutrality. I am no techie and take the internet for granted. Even after reading the articles, feeling competent I understood what they were saying and the implications, I knew I was not competent enough to properly assess if the claims made were actually true. Though I favor net neutrality from what I read (and the word "neutrality" had its own persuasion), I would really like to learn more. This seems an important issue. Site and excerpts below.

This is from https://www.idropnews.com/news/heres-end-net-neutrality-means/40167/

Going by the most basic definition, net neutrality is the concept that all internet traffic should be treated equally by service providers. On one side, proponents of net neutrality argue that the regulations prevent ISPs from playing favorites — throttling or outright blocking certain data, while giving priority and speed boosts to firms that have paid for quicker access. On the other hand, critics of the regulations say that they ultimately snarl innovation and investment.

One of the most direct effects consumers may see as a result of net neutrality regulations being dismantled is an increase in the number of “zero-rated services” — that is, access to unlimited content like video streaming that doesn’t use up any monthly data. Because of that, tech columnist Christopher Mims writes in the Wall Street Journal, many consumers will love the end of net neutrality — but only at first.

The end of net neutrality could be the start of prioritized access — which could ultimately stifle competition in the content creation industry. It works like this: big corporations can afford to pay ISPs to give faster access to their content. Smaller companies with shallower pockets, such as startups, won’t have the funds to pay for faster access, meaning that their content could be throttled or load at slower speeds. No one likes video buffering or content that loads slowly.

This is from https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/18/the-fcc-officially-proposes-to-end-net-neutrality-rules-but-its-not-over-yet/

“Today, we propose to repeal utility-style regulation of the Internet,” Chairman Ajit Pai said in a statement. “We propose to return to the Clinton-era light-touch framework that has proven to be successful. And we propose to put technologists and engineers, rather than lawyers and accountants, at the center of the online world.”

That technologists and engineers overwhelmingly support net neutrality seems lost on the chairman. There is hardly an internet-based company that hasn’t come out in favor of the rules as they stand; more than 800 startups signed an open letter saying just that in April, and hundreds more have been added since.

The proposed rule would remove the classification of broadband as a telecommunications service governed by Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which gives the FCC broad powers to regulate internet service providers. Critics argue that this approach is overk**l and could scare away investment or result in a government-controlled internet (the refutation of these arguments will be handled at length in a separate article).

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

The threat posed by unregulated internet service is easy to understand, when you look at how pervasive and necessary broadband access is. Smartphones can access the web, but have to go through service providers networks, who must buy access from internet service providers, and even when they are a subsidiary of the same company, must buy such access, the costs of which are passed to the consumer.

All of the bandwidth theoretically available for use, is owned by the Federal Government, most of which is reserved for Gov. use ( military etc. ). What is available for civilian use must be leased, and there are only a handful of companies that own access - who in turn lease access to other companies, i.e., internet service providers. In the last 10 years, AT&T and Verizon have gobbled up their competitors, and thus their bandwidth as well, making them the final arbiter of who does, and who does not, gain access to the world wide web. To be specific, without "net neutrality", ISP companies could give their subsidiary companies content faster speeds, slowing down the competition, thus creating an unfair privilege. Consumers tend not to care about the details, but would be pissed if their "Game of Thrones" buffered every few seconds, when some other show played UHD without pause.

Consider this: What if electric companies could limit how much electricity you may use in a given span of time, say 100 Kw every 2 hours? One might have to schedule using the electric dryer, by turning off the air conditioner until the clothes are done. Or, Companies mandate 50 amp main breakers for x amount of money, and for a little more, a 100 amp main, or the premium package with a 200 amp main. Instead, electricity is considered a "must have access" public utility, and companies may only charge for electricity used - not access.

Without net neutrality rules, ISP's may charge for access, charge more for higher speeds, and add on charges to their hearts content. Very little does NOT depend on the internet today, making it also a "must have access" utility. Every cent charged to down stream companies WILL be passed to the consumer, who will not only pay for the content companies charges, but also pay more for THEIR access to the content - unless they're willing to wait 5 - 10 minutes for a web page to load.

From corporate data alone, the big internet service providers are not hurting for cash - but their competitors are.

EmilyStrode

Wow, thank you. You're analogies really helped to drive home the point of keeping net neutrality. The picture is much clearer--and a lot bigger. So, essentially, the people who want to end net neutrality appear to be those backing corporate America and not the consumer.

Quakerwidow Loc: Chestertown, MD

excellent summary

EmilyStrode

Thank you.