Net Neutrality

[Greenmile]

This is EXACTLY why I'm opposed to the stupid and divisive cultural US political wars that you're determined to import:

You have now conflated two entirely separate issues.

1. Should ISPs be allowed to give free access to certain sites?
2. Should ISPs be allowed to slow down access to certain sites?

The first is a carrot. The second is a stick.

The US are only debating the stick.
The stick is not relevant to the UK.
I'm in favour of the carrot.
I'm opposed to the stick.

Why does everything need explaining to you using glove puppets?

You realise that, in the standard use of the metaphor, the "carrot" and the "stick" are just two different ways of achieving the same goal?

[Greenmile]

If there were multi-billion pound companies in the UK who would lobby our government to relax anti-stoning laws then you'd have a point. But there aren't, so you don't.

I don't know much about the subject, but aren't there multi billion pound companies who would lobby in favour of net neutrality - the content providers like Facebook, Netflix etc? Would they not be just as influential as the ISPs?

Or am I missing something which means that a lack of net neutrality would favour the larger content providers over their smaller rivals somehow?

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't know much about the subject, but aren't there multi billion pound companies who would lobby in favour of net neutrality - the content providers like Facebook, Netflix etc? Would they not be just as influential as the ISPs?

Yes and no.

Companies like Facebook would be financially incentivised by the possibility of no net neutrality because it means it's much less likely for them to supplanted by a start-up. They could just say to ISPs "here's some cash, give your customers free access to our website and not this new guy's".

While companies like Netflix could be at the mercy of the ISPs who have an incentive to see Netflix go out of business (BT, Virgin, Sky, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner etc.) by those ISPs providing great service to their own VoD services but throttling Netflix's traffic to their customers.
And on the flip side, if Netflix could say to the ISPs "here's a bunch of cash, make sure my customers get great quality streaming and that Amazon Prime get **** streaming".

The billion-pound companies that dominate their fields will be fine with getting rid of net neutrality. The ones who aren't dominant won't be fine with it, unless they think they can be dominant. But there's no realistic scenario where getting rid of net neutrality is good for either competition, or consumers.

[Rowls]

You realise that, in the standard use of the metaphor, the "carrot" and the "stick" are just two different ways of achieving the same goal?

Yes.

I've used the metaphor slightly differently here though haven't I?

I can do that because I'm clever like that.

[aggi]

There will be the opportunity for us to pass any damned law we want to. But it doesn't make sense to start worrying about stuff based on stupid American culture wars. As I said earlier you may as well worry about stoning to death being brought in.



What do you mean by this? Which company am I supporting?

I'm not sure you understand the difference between providing open access to the internet (a much better term than the Democrat-sponsored "Net Neutrality" bill) and the aforementioned partisan US politicking surrounding the issue.

There is a reasonable chance that UK companies may see US companies squeezing additional money from subscribers and wondering whether they can get a piece of that. Even ignoring that, some UK ISPs employ "Traffic Management" involving putting some traffic at a lower priority. For instance Plusnet put a lower priority on Usenet and P2P connections, it's not a huge leap to think that the next step may be to pay to remove that cap. Arguably ISP "adult filters" that are enabled by default also impact on net neutrality.

I was referring to an ISP supporting another company through offering free access. That clearly isn't a neutral position, it is promoting one service over others.

I can't really comment re: open access as it seems to be a term you've just introduced so I'll need a definition first. I suspect it isn't the same thing though and you're arguing an entirely different point.

[Rowls]

I was referring to an ISP supporting another company through offering free access. That clearly isn't a neutral position, it is promoting one service over others.

I can't really comment re: open access as it seems to be a term you've just introduced so I'll need a definition first. I suspect it isn't the same thing though and you're arguing an entirely different point.

As I've explained to Turtle, you cannot make a "neutral" action. Nothing you can do is "neutral". Even pushing for "net neutrality" isn't neutral - it's pushing for something. The term itself is an contradiction.

You're wrong about Open Access. Open Access internet isn't something I've just made up. It was the phrase used before the Democrats invented "Net Neutrality". Why did they change the phrase? Well you'd have to ask them but my best guess is to make their political position on the matter sound better by giving it a better name. It's exactly the same thing.

Pushing for "Open Access" to anything that may be on the internet has different connotations to "Net Neutrality". Turtle's fallen for this clever linguistic trick himself in the opening post - "Who could possibly be against neutrality?" he asks. Well, several people oppose the Democrat proposal for various complex and understandable measures.

I happen to disagree with the the opposition to "Net Neutrality" but it depends on a number of factors. Say for example, your company paid for the expense of laying the cables that carry the internet. Perhaps you'd want to decide how you charged people to access that service and that would be extremely reasonable if you ask me. Who the hell would the government think it was if it started telling you what you could with your property and how much you could charge for its use? This is all hypothetical because I don't know who owns the American cables and don't know how they were funded but I suspect, it being America and all, that the cost may have been met by private companies.

In the UK the government has met -to my knowledge- nearly all the cost of laying cables through grants and help to private firms. That, to me, negates the arguments for private companies restricting their use and is a good argument for a centrally controlled single telecoms system for the internet.

That's just one hypothetical question to take into account. That's without going into Turtle's very own definition of "Net Neutrality" which would appear to put his dogmatic adherence to "Net Neutrality" well in front of common sense - if he thinks making it illegal to get free access to Facebook etc will go down well then he'll be very much at home with the other Corbynistas who put ideological dogma before people.

[AndrewJB]

Ending net neutrality will be bad for ordinary people, and good for authoritarian-ish governments, and big companies. It may only be the US that take it up, but if it can affect traffic passing through the US, it can affect you.

[aggi]

Well I had a quick google for "Open Access Internet" but nothing came up other than a page relating to a different issue in Canada so I still can't really comment on that until you provide a link/definition.

I guess we're differing in our definition of "neutral". I'm taking neutrality as all traffic gets the same priority, i.e. not favouring any side, impartial, balanced. If something is in imbalance then you can push for neutrality, the action may not be neutral but the result is.

I can see your viewpoint in terms of cabling from a purely capitalist viewpoint, the issue being that we don't all want companies to be able to exploit a monopoly position for their own sake to the detriment of the users. That is why monopoly rules are in place, to stop such exploitation in many areas.

[Greenmile]

Yes.

I've used the metaphor slightly differently here though haven't I?

I can do that because I'm clever like that.

Is that like how you use the word "neutrality" differently from everyone else?

[Rowls]

I guess we're differing in our definition of "neutral". I'm taking neutrality as all traffic gets the same priority, i.e. not favouring any side, impartial, balanced. If something is in imbalance then you can push for neutrality, the action may not be neutral but the result is.

I can see your viewpoint in terms of cabling from a purely capitalist viewpoint, the issue being that we don't all want companies to be able to exploit a monopoly position for their own sake to the detriment of the users. That is why monopoly rules are in place, to stop such exploitation in many areas.

I agree regarding traffic being dealt with by allocating it the same bandwidth. That is different though to what CharlieTurtle is now on about with his crusade against free access to internet sites. It is bandwidth allocation that should be dealt with on an equal basis. Whether a ISP wants to allow you free access to certain sites is down to them as long as the bandwidth allocation is equal.

As I said, it is NOT *my* viewpoint - I used that as an example!

But more importantly, none of this is relevant to the UK. It is a debate relevant to the US.

[Imploding Turtle]

As I've explained to Turtle, you cannot make a "neutral" action. Nothing you can do is "neutral". Even pushing for "net neutrality" isn't neutral - it's pushing for something. The term itself is an contradiction.

...

No one's saying the push for net neutrality is a neutral cause you ******* halfwit.

[Imploding Turtle]

It was the phrase used before the Democrats invented "Net Neutrality". Why did they change the phrase? Well you'd have to ask them but my best guess is to make their political position on the matter sound better by giving it a better name. It's exactly the same thing.

What is your source for the Democratic Party inventing Net Neutrality? Please tell me it's not just that you Googled "net neutrality" saw that some guy called Tim Wu coined the phrase, clicked his name and noticed that he is one of over 44 million people who are a member of that party.

And why do you keep repeating that it was Democrats that "invented" it, if not just to try and turn people against it purely because you're portraying it as a Democratic invention? You keep complaining how i've tried to make this a partisan cause by not once trying to make it a partisan cause, so why do you keep mentioning the Democrats?

[Imploding Turtle]

Well, they've gone and done it.

Yet further evidence of just how bought and paid for the GOP is. Wasn't Trump supposed to be draining this swamp?

[Paul Waine]

Well, they've gone and done it.

Yet further evidence of just how bought and paid for the GOP is. Wasn't Trump supposed to be draining this swamp?

........ by not once trying to make it a partisan cause, so why do you keep mentioning the Democrats?

Hi IT, who is "they?" what have they "done?"

GOP, Trump, swamp, partisan, Democrats?

Is this a response to Alabama?

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, who is "they?" what have they "done?"

GOP, Trump, swamp, partisan, Democrats?

Is this a response to Alabama?

Republicans and the FCC.

[Caernarfon_Claret]

They have repealed Net Neutrality is what IT means when he says they've gone and done it.