Net nutreuality

[Globalcitizen12]

• Tweet

What going on I hear an Indian is getting pounded by big media
https://i.redd.it/yekymz9wec001.jpg

 [imghttps://i.redd.it/yekymz9wec001.jpg[/img]

[Nefertiti]

Trump FCC is intent on reversing Obama internet policy. There are pros and cons for the west despite all the noises. But for me what matters is the impact on the developing world. The internet is still quite underdeveloped and has yet to achieve its potential. Even in the west where all the telco and satellite firms coalesce. All the talk of satellite- and drone- and ballon internet...  Web 2.0 is not yet here otherwise the cost should have crumbled and access would be ubiquitous and universal. Instead we still have 4G cable being laid in Nairobi... wifi is accessible in limited central locations.

Net neutrality - a PR word for the regulatory plethora - has shackled MNCs who would have invested way bigger by now. It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure. If you're content owner Netflix you cannot also own the pipe or cable. Verizon cannot also own content without major approvals, etc. That's the gist I get which is good for a mature playing field but not one under construction. It's like saying Amazon cannot own a physical retail store or that Walmart cannot do e-commerce without fulfilling a long cheklist. Good but only once the sector is mature.

I say to hell with Net neutrality. Aggressive growth is good for Africa and everyone - except a few players - because the big investor would see quick returns without the contraints. The FCC impacts us much more than the local CA. Go Pai!

[Nefertiti]

Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.

[Empedocles]

Robina,

I think you misunderstand what's really going on. What Trump and his gang want to do is allow ISP's to divide the internet into fast and slow networks so that they can make more money. For example, charging more so one can access YouTube (more bandwidth needed) than someone who just wants to browse, for example, Nation online (less bandwidth).

That's what it boils down to. In other words, the ISP's win and the small time users, like us, will be forced to shell out more cash to be able to use Netflix / YouTube etc.

Here's a good example of what it means (Indian example):



In Kenya, Safcom and the others (Why telcos want Facebook and WhatsApp regulated). They'll be able to block WhatsApp, Skype, etc. and force us back to the days of SMS unless we pay for the extra service.


Clearly Robina's eyes are not open as wide. FB,Google, and regular guys are the loseres. Verizons, ATTS are the winners. Robina, simply its building a highway one for the well off and another for everyone else. ISPs can still slow down the "highway for everyone else" whenever they feel like so that they well off can have more free way.

[MOON Ki]

Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.

I'm not sure I understand your example.   Google (Alphabet) and Facebook are actually very strong supporters of net neutrality.    In fact, Google's has numerous problems with companies that favour the dismantling of net neutrality .... Comcast,  A T & T.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/?tag=google+fiber

It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure

And Google Fiber?

[Nefertiti]

Empo I get exactly that. It's all so noble until you see the impact. What happened to Internet.org?

Between Verizon and Facebook who's the ISP? According to your narrative it's the ISP that gets power in the new arrangement. So how come it's the same ISPs whining?

The issue is, Google, Facebook, etc - the tech giants - have the capital, talent & tech muscle to out-innovate the lazy telcos out of the internet business. Facebook wants balloons to stream bandwidth simlessly - and cheaply - which kicks Safaricom et al out of business.

[Nefertiti]

Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality. Google has also faced heavy fines because the rules don't allow them to lower rates for the poor so as not to undercut non-existent competitors. So for this FB & Google shelved their internet balloons and confined R&D to labs in the Silicon Valley.

I'm not sure I understand your example.   Google (Alphabet) and Facebook are actually very strong supporters of net neutrality.    In fact, Google's has numerous problems with companies that favour the dismantling of net neutrality .... Comcast,  A T & T.

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/?tag=google+fiber

PR - businesses don't mean what they say much like the politicians. If you look at Empedocles's diagram and listen carefully to the story you will see Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon - the tech giants - are the real concern to the telcos.

It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure

And Google Fiber?

Google has to agree to FCC rules - such as not exceeding certain rates set by telco clubs. It stifles Google's ambitions.

[MOON Ki]

PR - businesses don't mean what they say much like the politicians. If you look at Empedocles's diagram and listen carefully to the story you will see Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon - the tech giants - are the real concern to the telcos.

Sorry, you lost me again.   You wrote of MNCs that have supposedly been shackled by the net neutrality rule and then gave examples of MNCs that are in fact supporting net neutrality.   PR?    I doubt that Google is investing in Google Fiber and spending money on lawsuits over it just for PR.     

Google has to agree to FCC rules - such as not exceeding certain rates set by telco clubs. It stifles Google's ambitions.

Google certainly has to play by whatever FCC rules that are relevant.  I was, however, responding to your claim, in the matter of "internet neutrality",  that

It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure

If that is the case, then Google is willfully breaking the rules and the regulator is fast asleep.   Possible, but to my mind unlikely.   

That bit was an extract on your general commentary on "net neutrality", which commentary was this:

Net neutrality - a PR word for the regulatory plethora - has shackled MNCs who would have invested way bigger by now. It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure. If you're content owner Netflix you cannot also own the pipe or cable. Verizon cannot also own content without major approvals, etc. That's the gist I get which is good for a mature playing field but not one under construction. It's like saying Amazon cannot own a physical retail store or that Walmart cannot do e-commerce without fulfilling a long cheklist. Good but only once the sector is mature.

I have read the "net neutrality rule", and I am hard pressed to see how you come up with that.    According to the FCC, the current rule is

Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers or edge providers from reaching one another on the Internet; and provides for enhanced transparency into network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms of broadband Internet access service.

Just on that basis, one can see why providers don't care for it.   As Empedocles has pointed out, they cannot, for example, rip off people on the basis of "paid prioritization".   

It is also not easy to see how a company like Google is constrained in the manner you have suggested.  Perhaps you can point to the parts of the "rule" that you think are applicable. ?example, which part would you say supports the red claim above

Here it is:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/13/2015-07841/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet

[Nefertiti]

Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers or edge providers from reaching one another on the Internet; and provides for enhanced transparency into network management practices, network performance, and commercial terms of broadband Internet access service.

Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

[Nefertiti]

MOON Ki

My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.

So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.

[MOON Ki]

Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

You lost me again.   Yes, one can talk of a "wider regulatory framework" and whatever, but the argument right now is over the "rule(s)" that people consider as embodying "net neutrality".  That, of course, means different things in different countries, but I assume that this one is largely about the USA/FCC. (And I wouldn't quite refer to the 2015 regulations as a "single clause".)

To the extent that you disagree with that view, you may point out other regulations that are directly relevant to the matter of "internet neutrality", and we can then discuss them.   I am, for example, keen to see one to support the claim that

It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure.

If it will help, instead of just referring to a "wider regulatory framework", you may refer to specific parts of Pai's draft, which is quite specific and well beyond a vague "wider regulatory framework".

One may talk about what "net neutrality" means in general and what "wider internet regulatory framework" is relevant, but as far as I can see, the main issue here---and what people seem to be mostly debating---is the difference between the 2015 regulations and what Pai now proposes.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposal-restore-internet-freedom

Oh, I also didn't get this one:

Facebook's Internet.org - a cheap access for Sub Sahara & Southern Asia - was torpedoed by Net neutrality.

Perhaps you can explain in a bit more detail.

[MOON Ki]

MOON Ki

My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.

So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.

"Straightjacket", "hurts them", "demotivates",  ... in addition to aforementioned "shackles". Interesting.  Google has been fighting very hard on the side of current "net neutrality" regulations.   Other than spending money on lawsuits, they are also calling on users of their services to join the fight.   You may sign up here:    https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html

It is, of course, possible that those who run Google don't know what's good for the company and are not properly motivated, but I am not prepared to bet on it.

On Google Fiber: I can't comment on how innovative it is.   My comment was limited to the idea that regulations forbid them from doing certain things.   

[Nefertiti]

Net neutrality is the wider internet regulatory framework not this single clause.

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

You lost me again.   Yes, one can talk of a "wider regulatory framework" and whatever, but the argument right now is over the "rule(s)" that people consider as embodying "net neutrality".  That, of course, means different things in different countries, but I assume that this one is largely about the USA/FCC. (And I wouldn't quite refer to the 2015 regulations as a "single clause".)

I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.

To the extent that you disagree with that view, you may point out other regulations that are directly relevant to the matter of "internet neutrality", and we can then discuss them.   I am, for example, keen to see one to support the claim that

It basically says if you're content driver Google you cannot also own the infrastructure.

If it will help, instead of just referring to a "wider regulatory framework", you may refer to specific parts of Pai's draft.   One may talk about what "net neutrality" means in general and what "wider internet regulatory framework" is relevant, but as far as I can see, the main issue here---and what people seem to be mostly debating---is the difference between the 2015 regulations and what Pai now proposes.

The 2015 regulations are what is termed as "Net neutrality". Before that the internet regulations mostly crafted under Clinton were just that, no catchphrase. The import (of the catchphrase) is that the 2015 clause(s) were to ensure a "level playing field" between content providers and the telcos/ISPs. The latter were seen to have a lot of power over the Net.

Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.

We take several actions in this Order to restore Internet freedom.

First, we end utility-style regulation of the Internet in favor of the market-based policies necessary to preserve the future of  Internet freedom.  In the 2015 Title II Order, the Commission abandoned almost twenty years of precedent and reclassified broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to  myriad regulatory obligations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act).

https://www.fcc.gov/document/proposal-restore-internet-freedom

[MOON Ki]

I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.

I see.   I was going by the OP's posting and what much of the current debate is about.   I also took the reference to a "this single clause" to mean the material at the links I provided.

Again, you lost me with the other stuff.   Perhaps we can narrow things and just focus on the red points above.   Once I understand those, I will probably be in a better position to see the "wider" things.

Oh, from a legal viewpoint, I found this one really interesting:

Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.

Wider implications outside the USA and beyond FCC regulations?   I'd be interested to know.

[Nefertiti]

MOON Ki

My argument is that Net neutrality is bad for the internet as a whole. When telcos/ISPs like Verizon undercut YouTube and Netflix - the latter will innovate and grow the internet. The present rules are a straghtjacket that demotivate Google. Constraining players to layers of the internet ecosystem. Let them compete and innovate.

So for Google, Net neutrality scrap hurts them immediately but forces them to innovate - not just invest - in internet infrastructure. Google Fibre - cable - is not an innovation. No wonder it is expensive and mostly enterprise/non-consumer - standard evils of heavy rules.

"Straightjacket", "hurts them", "demotivates",  ... in addition to aforementioned "shackles". Interesting.  Google has been fighting very hard on the side of current "net neutrality" regulations.   Other than spending money on lawsuits, they are also calling on users of their services to join the fight.   You may sign up here:    https://www.google.com/takeaction/action/freeandopen/index.html

It is, of course, possible that those who run Google don't know what's good for the company and are not properly motivated, but I am not prepared to bet on it.

On Google Fiber: I can't comment on how innovative it is.   My comment was limited to the idea that regulations forbid them from doing certain things.   

I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?

The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.

[Nefertiti]

In short I agree with Pai: the internet is a product not a utility like a govt school. This clarity will allow innovation.

[Nefertiti]

I am saying exactly that - Net neutrality is a not a single clause under debate but a framework.

I see.   I was going by the OP's posting and what much of the current debate is about.   I also took the reference to a "this single clause" to mean the material at the links I provided.

Again, you lost me with the other stuff.   Perhaps we can narrow things and just focus on the red points above.   Once I understand those, I will probably be in a better position to see the "wider" things.

Oh, from a legal viewpoint, I found this one really interesting:

Now, the clause you point out impacts the wider framework, and so "Net neutrality" is understood to mean the entire internet framework. This Pai/FCC quote says alot about the wider implications.

Wider implications outside the USA and beyond FCC regulations?   I'd be interested to know.

Wider than the USA and the FCC yes. We use the ubiquitous "internet" in Kenya and the US rules spill over. The internet is, well, international, and not strictly restricted by geography. We see this once in a while. Here's a related but slightly different example.

In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.

[MOON Ki]

I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?

The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.

I'd be interested in your views as a user.   That is on the basis on which I support net neutrality.   Google and the likes do it for money, but our interests coincide. That works for me.

Your last comment is very interesting in many ways, e.g. if one considers "anti-trust issues".   I'll skip those for now.   As a user, my view of the "public utility" approach to the internet is that increased use of the internet actually supports that, and the last thing that is helpful is any sort of free-for-all ought to be limited.   

[Nefertiti]

I outdo myself speaking for Google. I was wrong on my argument about the benefits to Google (and disadvantage to telcos/ISPs). It seems they hold a contrary belief to mine. To me, if Verizon chokes YouTube, say, such that a significant user base is unable to access it due to extra cost, Google would be forced to think its way out of the problem. The rule causes conformity and laziness - why should Google worry about the internet when it is protected by the FCC?

The internet infrastructure is proprietary products just like YouTube. Google can restrict access to its content - by pricing, etc - and so should Verizon.

I'd be interested in your views as a user.   That is on the basis on which I support net neutrality.   Google and the likes do it for money, but our interests coincide. That works for me.

Your last comment is very interesting in many ways, e.g. if one considers "anti-trust issues".   I'll skip those for now.   As a user, my view of the "public utility" approach to the internet is that increased use of the internet actually supports that, and the last thing that is helpful is any sort of free-for-all ought to be limited.   

If you consider innovation - and the FCC's/Pai's researched view of neutrality's effect on it - you will come to my contra view as a user. If you agree with the research cited by Pai on neutrality and innovation, and if you also agree that innovation is good for the users - lowers cost, improves quality, advances the technology, etc - how can you then be for neutrality?

[MOON Ki]

Wider than the USA and the FCC yes. We use the "internet" in Kenya and the US rules spill over. The internet is, well, international, and not strictly restricted by geography. We see once in a while.

I don't quite see that.  Perhaps you can point to specific things in Pai's draft that you think is relevant to other countries.

Here's a related but slightly different example. In 2005, Google hired Microsoft VP Dr Kai-Fu Lee to run Google China. Microsoft went to a US court and the US rules on "non compete" applied on an employee running a Google branch outside the US. Google of course argued jurisdiction and lost.

You lost me there.   I don't see any connection there to "net neutrality", the internet, the FCC, etc.   As far as I can tell, that seems to be a matter of labour contracts and so forth.