Net Neutrality in a Trump administration

[Dominus Atheos]

https://thinkprogress.org/bye-forever-n ... .b8dkxsyyw

TLDR(because I want to rant for a while): Net neutrality is a doctrine where Comcast (for example) can't deliberately sabotage your connection to Netflix in order to get you to purchase their cable tv package.

Conservatives have this bizarre idea that net neutrality is somehow related to the Fairness Doctrine, where radio channels had to give equal time to both liberals and conservatives, and want to scrap the whole thing.

But don't take my word for it, here's Forbes Magazine explaining how net neutrality is a backdoor attempt to ban... somethingsomething. I don't know, I read the entire article and still don't understand what the hell they are talking about.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminite ... 1b93e64a7e

To ensure “fairness,” the FCC would have to create and enforce guidelines that would affect search results and Internet access. This would inevitably affect speech; after all, if a search engine has to load liberal views as quick as it does conservative ones, and vice versa, then the views from the most popular or most topical, or the websites of advertisers would have to be moved down the list to ensure “fairness.” This censors a search engine’s owners right to free speech, as it controls what they say and how they present the information.(The White House is certainly aware how important search results are; for example, in December 2010, Politico reported that the Obama Administration had paid Google, with tax dollars, to load http://www.healthcare.gov when someone searches for the term “Obamacare.”)

Seriously, if anyone can tell me what the author thinks that paragraph means, I would like to know. Somethingsomething can't slow down huffinton post somethingsomething advertisers "moved down the list" somethingsomething censorship somethingsomething Obamacare tax-dollars.. I literally have no idea what this paragraph is trying to say.

...

But what does this have to do with Trump? Well...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 8508167168

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

And now:

President-elect Donald Trump has selected two anti-net neutrality advisers to shape the future administration’s telecom policy strategy at the Federal Communications Commission, Recode reported.

So get prepared for netflix and all other video sites to get unbearably slow, at least until you purchase a tv package from your ISP.

[Zixinus]

It is the work of propaganda with the strategy against Net Neutrality that is still the same: confuse the average person how the Internet actually works, that what the liberals want IS the change rather than they want NO change.

The problem isn't really slowdown but the fact that ISP can arbitrary prioritize a user's traffic by addresses.

[bilateralrope]

So get prepared for netflix and all other video sites to get unbearably slow, at least until you purchase a tv package from your ISP.

Why would they offer a package that lets Netflix run fast when they could instead push their own VOD TV service ?

[Dominus Atheos]

Because you already payed for their VOD service, and now they have incentive to not piss you off.

For example, no data cap as part of their internet+tv package, but yes data cap with their "just internet" plan.

[Zinegata]

So get prepared for netflix and all other video sites to get unbearably slow, at least until you purchase a tv package from your ISP.

Why would they offer a package that lets Netflix run fast when they could instead push their own VOD TV service ?

Because cable TV itself is in trouble because of rising content costs. It's becoming very expensive (and risky) to buy shows for cable TV networks, which is why HBO and AMC are clinging on their two staples (Game of Thrones and Walking Dead) and milking them for every cent. Netflix itself has begun to drop content purchases from other studios in favor of making their own original content - which they think would be of better quality and would be cheaper.

Also, I have to note that much of the current slowdowns are being driven by the much higher bandwidth requirements of HD video - because compression technology hasn't caught up yet. But rather than wait the content companies instead want to push 4K content which would drive up bandwidth usage even more.

[bilateralrope]

Because you already payed for their VOD service, and now they have incentive to not piss you off.

What incentive ?

My understanding of US ISPs is that competition basically doesn't exist. So they can piss their customers off because those customers only have two choices. Remain customers or do without internet.

[Dominus Atheos]

It's a duopoly. You can get internet and tv and landline phone service from either the company that 20 years ago was your just phone company, or the one that was just your cable tv company. But now both of those have data caps.

But you are right, maybe they still won't upgrade their connections to netflix etc even if you get their tv package.

[Elheru Aran]

Why would they offer a package that lets Netflix run fast when they could instead push their own VOD TV service ?

Because cable TV itself is in trouble because of rising content costs. It's becoming very expensive (and risky) to buy shows for cable TV networks, which is why HBO and AMC are clinging on their two staples (Game of Thrones and Walking Dead) and milking them for every cent. Netflix itself has begun to drop content purchases from other studios in favor of making their own original content - which they think would be of better quality and would be cheaper.

I will note that Netflix often has several shows from these networks, for example it has Walking Dead. It just won't run the current season or two until it comes up on contract or whatever, so the original network can make some profits first off subscribers and DVD sales. So if you're behind on your Walking Dead, Green Arrow, Flash or whatever, well hey, you can catch up.

[Raj Ahten]

Well it's now obvious what the players in the ISP and content fields want to do and that is to become vertically integrated behemoths that can crush all opposition before them due to their size and market share. The purposed Time Warner and AT&T merger makes this clear. Without net neutrality AT&T has every incentive to give Time Warner products faster speed on their network. It would be a selling point. "You can watch our great shows and it won't be slow and/or incur more data charges like on Netflix!" Ultimately for normal people this means even less choices as now you wouldn't even be able to catch shows from competing networks without significant slowdowns and and other headaches. It's also another problem for startups. How is someone with a new idea and even certifiable better product supposed to compete with the established companies with billions of dollars in their war chests and ways to use those billions to make their competition look like crap because they can pay for the privilege to do so?

[Zinegata]

I will note that Netflix often has several shows from these networks, for example it has Walking Dead. It just won't run the current season or two until it comes up on contract or whatever, so the original network can make some profits first off subscribers and DVD sales. So if you're behind on your Walking Dead, Green Arrow, Flash or whatever, well hey, you can catch up.

The practice you refer to is called windowing. Basically, content gets released in specific formats after a specific time frame after theatrical or movie release. The earliest window is, strangely enough, airline entertainment systems. This is followed by DVD and online purchase release, and then TV release through paid channels like HBO. Netflix gets the very last window - which is called within the industry as "SVOD" or "Subscription Video-on-Demand". Trying to break these content windows has been... a challenge to say the least, largely because most of the people running the studios are still stuck in the bloody 80s.

Netflix though is moving away from SVOD - they are getting less and less content from other networks and I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually carry only Netflix originals in the future. And that's because SVOD - despite having the oldest content - is still pretty damn expensive from an operator standpoint.

[Zinegata]

Well it's now obvious what the players in the ISP and content fields want to do and that is to become vertically integrated behemoths that can crush all opposition before them due to their size and market share. The purposed Time Warner and AT&T merger makes this clear. Without net neutrality AT&T has every incentive to give Time Warner products faster speed on their network. It would be a selling point. "You can watch our great shows and it won't be slow and/or incur more data charges like on Netflix!" Ultimately for normal people this means even less choices as now you wouldn't even be able to catch shows from competing networks without significant slowdowns and and other headaches. It's also another problem for startups. How is someone with a new idea and even certifiable better product supposed to compete with the established companies with billions of dollars in their war chests and ways to use those billions to make their competition look like crap because they can pay for the privilege to do so?

As someone working for an ISP which had repeatedly tried to do the vertical integration of this sort... I would say that the American consumer has very, very little to worry about regarding this merger.

Trying to tie data speed to content - when the content market is too diffused - has pretty much never worked. Content only really works with broadband if you treat it as a way to increase usage and demand for speed. If you try to force content on people however it actually just makes them use broadband less overall, which is bad for both the ISP and the content generator. You can't force a Marvel fan to start loving DC for an extra 2 Mbps speed.

[Lost Soal]

Well it's now obvious what the players in the ISP and content fields want to do and that is to become vertically integrated behemoths that can crush all opposition before them due to their size and market share. The purposed Time Warner and AT&T merger makes this clear. Without net neutrality AT&T has every incentive to give Time Warner products faster speed on their network. It would be a selling point. "You can watch our great shows and it won't be slow and/or incur more data charges like on Netflix!" Ultimately for normal people this means even less choices as now you wouldn't even be able to catch shows from competing networks without significant slowdowns and and other headaches. It's also another problem for startups. How is someone with a new idea and even certifiable better product supposed to compete with the established companies with billions of dollars in their war chests and ways to use those billions to make their competition look like crap because they can pay for the privilege to do so?

As someone working for an ISP which had repeatedly tried to do the vertical integration of this sort... I would say that the American consumer has very, very little to worry about regarding this merger.

Trying to tie data speed to content - when the content market is too diffused - has pretty much never worked. Content only really works with broadband if you treat it as a way to increase usage and demand for speed. If you try to force content on people however it actually just makes them use broadband less overall, which is bad for both the ISP and the content generator. You can't force a Marvel fan to start loving DC for an extra 2 Mbps speed.

Prior to the net neutrality rules coming in Comcast basically blackmailed Netflix into paying them extra to stop throttling their content, when those rules get thrown out they can do it again. It doesn't matter if their customers use broadband less, they're still getting paid. Then there is the frequent over billing where Comcast says they've used terabytes of data and so owe thousands in over charges.

[Zinegata]

Prior to the net neutrality rules coming in Comcast basically blackmailed Netflix into paying them extra to stop throttling their content, when those rules get thrown out they can do it again. It doesn't matter if their customers use broadband less, they're still getting paid. Then there is the frequent over billing where Comcast says they've used terabytes of data and so owe thousands in over charges.

I can't speak regarding the Comcast deal a few years back, but I have to note that expanding bandwidth to support video comes with very considerable costs - particularly in terms of hardware. And Netflix does in fact use a huge amount of data. I believe at one point it was revealed that they consumed more bandwidth than every other website combined.

That's why Netflix and other video services like Youtube are now pro-actively working with the ISPs. Indeed, Comcast and Netflix just announced a big partnership deal a week ago. It was less about net neutrality - which should actually focus on protecting smaller services of the same class as Netflix - and more of there was a real cost issue.

[bilateralrope]

Well it's now obvious what the players in the ISP and content fields want to do and that is to become vertically integrated behemoths that can crush all opposition before them due to their size and market share. The purposed Time Warner and AT&T merger makes this clear. Without net neutrality AT&T has every incentive to give Time Warner products faster speed on their network. It would be a selling point. "You can watch our great shows and it won't be slow and/or incur more data charges like on Netflix!" Ultimately for normal people this means even less choices as now you wouldn't even be able to catch shows from competing networks without significant slowdowns and and other headaches. It's also another problem for startups. How is someone with a new idea and even certifiable better product supposed to compete with the established companies with billions of dollars in their war chests and ways to use those billions to make their competition look like crap because they can pay for the privilege to do so?

As someone working for an ISP which had repeatedly tried to do the vertical integration of this sort... I would say that the American consumer has very, very little to worry about regarding this merger.

Trying to tie data speed to content - when the content market is too diffused - has pretty much never worked. Content only really works with broadband if you treat it as a way to increase usage and demand for speed. If you try to force content on people however it actually just makes them use broadband less overall, which is bad for both the ISP and the content generator. You can't force a Marvel fan to start loving DC for an extra 2 Mbps speed.

Reduce the bandwidth people are using and ISPs can claim that infrastructure improvements aren't as necessary. Saving them money.

Plus they get more people using the content that's forced on people than they otherwise would. Meaning more money for the ISP.

[Zinegata]

Reduce the bandwidth people are using and ISPs can claim that infrastructure improvements aren't as necessary. Saving them money.

Plus they get more people using the content that's forced on people than they otherwise would. Meaning more money for the ISP.

Except reducing bandwidth people use deprives the ISP of more income, since most ISPs now charge based on usage or have some kind of data cap.

And - generally speaking - revenue from bandwidth is a lot more consistent than banking on content. ISPs earn from bandwidth regardless if the customer wants to watch Marvel or DC.

Moreover, ISPs simply cannot avoid infrastructure improvement - for the simple reason that cables and the machines that keep them working have a lifespan. Eventually they have to be replaced, and the trend has been to adopt better technology rather than simply buying the old stuff again. That's why dial-up ultimately died and was replaced by cable/DSL, while cable/DSL is looking to be replaced by various Fiber optic offers. It just seems they aren't improving to the end consumer because roll-out of new technology is really time-consuming and expensive.