I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could happen. This can be useful if at some point the internet providers started to collude or think about changing the status quo. It is one thing to rely on the status quo to be the same by the good well (maybe market forces, but they often fail to protect customers) of the providers but another if they are required to do.
It's also about what did happen in the past. ISPs explicitly targeted P2P protocols like BitTorrent instead of identifying and fixing the underlying network problems (bufferbloat) that were first exposed by p2p but eventually became problematic for many other use cases. ISPs extorted streaming video providers that competed against their own bundled services. Cellular providers implemented various zero-rating schemes to explicitly privilege access to certain partner services. All of these are real, documented harms that were inflicted on the public and can be prevented and punished by reasonable net neutrality regulation without interfering with the ability of an ISP to compete in the market by trying to be a better ISP.
> All of these are real, documented harms that were inflicted on the public and can be prevented and punished by reasonable net neutrality regulation without interfering with the ability of an ISP to compete in the market by trying to be a better ISP.
Exactly. We just watched this exact situation play out when twitch left Korea due to ISP greed [1]. ISPs double dipped by charging both twitch and their users. It is frustrating so many commenters here are acting like there is zero benefit from having net neutrality when the examples are so obvious.
> I think people argue that without net neutrality, we didn't see much negative impact. Except that it is not always about what is happening, but what could happen. This can be useful if at some point the internet providers started to collude or think about changing the status quo.
This is a very good point - but one that applies equally to the FCC. Per the dissent[1] linked by ChrisArchitect in a sibling thread (which, while written from a rather biased and slightly inflammatory perspective, makes very good arguments), the FCC is not voting to implement net neutrality, but to give itself more power, with the promise of only using it to implement net neutrality - which, as we know from our experiences granting powers to individuals, companies, and government agencies alike, never actually happens.
I believe that net neutrality is something that is 100% good for consumers with no downsides for them, and opposed only by companies that want to charge extra for prioritizing traffic. However, I think we should be very careful about what powers we give to federal agencies to regulate and control private industry.
Targeted regulation is good, wide-ranging powers granted indiscriminately are bad.
Regulators shouldn’t waste time on non-existent problems that might come to pass (unless it’s a catastrophic outcome, like nuclear weapon proliferation).
Instead we should keep the threat of neutrality on hand, but only use it if the market fails. It hasn’t failed yet. ISPs seem much less willing to filter content than tech giants like Google and Facebook are.
Always keep in mind that regulations get corrupted by industry over time. Regulatory capture is worse for the consumer than is a well-functioning market.
> but only use it if the market fails. It hasn’t failed yet.
First of all, regulators should at a minimum have enough investigatory power to monitor for and uncover abusive market failure situations. But your assertion that the market hasn't failed yet only seems to hold up if you set a pretty high bar for what kind of malfeasance qualifies as a market failure. Do you honestly believe that none of the instances on record in the US and elsewhere are individually or collectively sufficient justification for preventive measures? Just how much abuse has to pile up before regulation stops being a waste of time?
The only violation I currently experience is that T-mobile gives me a free Netflix subscription and free wifi on flights. Both benefit me without hurting others. And both would be allowed under the previous regulation, since it largely exempted cellular service.
At home I regularly use unsavory services like Bittorrent without throttling. (And so much of traffic is now encrypted and served from a small number of CDNs, the ability of ISPs to shape traffic has been dramatically reduced.)
> And so much of traffic is now encrypted and served from a small number of CDNs, the ability of ISPs to shape traffic has been dramatically reduced.
Pointing to lasting effects from previous net neutrality violations as evidence that neutrality regulations are unnecessary doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me.
Or do you have an explanation for the dearth of p2p traffic (especially for voice and video conferencing) that isn't rooted in ISPs providing only a very locked-down "internet" service that barely permits anything other than www?
I have a 1200 GB cap on my cable internet since 2020. Prior to that there was no cap. Now I have to either use my ISP's modem, double my monthly payment, or pay $10 per GIG beyond the cap.
Even if/when it's voted on, I don't see it actually implemented anytime soon due to the inevitable Big Telecom lawsuits [1] and not to mention that it may be significanly weaker than the 2015 rules. [2]
My point still stands that the US Supreme Court is going to have to step in and decide net neutrality's future one way or another because I can't see Congress pass a law to codify it.
Having gigabit fiber for $80 a month has nothing to do with net neutrality. Not sure why you would think having fiber means net neutrality isn't needed or desirable. You seem a little confused about what net neutrality means!
That’s uncommon in most of the country but it also misses the point: it’s about access. Comcast and Verizon tried to double-charge Netflix for access to their customers and that instinct needs to be blocked because otherwise every MBA looking to juice their quarterly numbers is going to look for opportunities to do it.
There’s also a privacy angle: ISPs used to mine search data and even inject tracking cookies into HTTP traffic. That’s less of an issue now with HTTPS so widely used but they still mine TLS host names and would no doubt do anything else which advertisers will pay for as long as it’s legal.
Amazing; when will this come to Silicon Valley? There are parts of Menlo that have fiber service, but the rest of us are stuck in a Comcast monopoly (where $80/mo gets you 75/20 service).
I read some of the dissent document above. While Carr is obviously biased and uses inflammatory language, and makes some illogical arguments, his arguments on the "Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act"[1] are much better-reasoned and appear to come from solid legal standing.
His opinion is that net neutrality isn't a problem. I think that's absolutely incorrect - but I do agree with his opinion that Title II isn't necessarily the right way to solve net neutrality.
In some jurisdictions, yes. A number of other jurisdictions have legislated their own Net Neutrality rules though and the issue is still a relatively hot topic in internet policy circles. So ISPs are waiting for all controversy around it to die down before more aggressively abusing their position to favor their own services and cripple that of competitors and anyone who refuses to pay them extra $$$ beyond what they already pay.
Have you noticed any negative impacts from not having net neutrality? I haven't -- compare this to FOSTA-SESTA, which knocked craigslist personals and various other sites offline.
I don't really see why people get so worked up about net neutrality.
There are plenty of examples of real damage caused by ISPs being able to give preferential treatment to what _they_ think is important. A quick search comes up with plenty of examples:
1. ISPs limiting 3rd party VOIP solutions to avoid competition with their own VOIP solutions
2. Comcast blocking bitorrent communication was pretty obvious case of ISP preferentially limiting traffic
3. Verizon blocking text messages it didn't like the political message of
4. Verizon blocking 3rd party tethering apps, limiting users from using the bandwidth they pay for because they want to prevent competition
5. ATT prevented Facetime over their network unless users paid a higher subscription, even though users were already paying for data
6. Verizon limiting bandwidth for arbitrary reasons during natural disasters (first responders communication hampered due to limits justified through 'we don't need to follow net neutrality anymore')
Those are a few, there are MANY more examples in the US alone. Ya, some or many have been rolled back due to public outcry, but they shouldn't have happened to begin with. Allowing ISPs to determine which traffic is allowed based on their own self interest is just a terrible idea. Just because you haven't been harmed by it yet doesn't mean much, especially not in a country where the majority have only one or maybe two broadband ISPs to choose from. It WILL be abused, and we know this because it already has.
Do you have any examples post 2020, when net neutrality was revoked?
The internet has changed dramatically in the 10+ years since most of your examples and removal of net neutrality regulation has not seemed to cause any of those issues to resurface.
Twitch left Korea because of their crazy fees that would be prohibited under net neutrality. ISPs double dip and charge websites/companies like twitch, Youtube, etc to deliver data and also charge their users money at the same time.
https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...
>The problem stems from a “sender pays” rule instituted by South Korea’s Ministry of Science and ICT in 2016, to address the growing interconnection demands of video streaming and other bandwidth-intensive services. The rule requires companies to compensate the receiving networks for the traffic they send. It’s meant to tax heavy senders like Netflix and YouTube. Livestreaming sites like Twitch face particularly steep fees, as low latency is critical for live content.
>The “sender pays” model has been widely criticized by net neutrality advocates: In a recent statement calling for the repeal of the rule in the wake of Twitch’s exit, Open Net Korea warned that it “devastates the domestic content ecosystem” and “fragments the internet.”
One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.
> One doesn't need an example from just a few months ago to see why this is a bad idea. Acting like the internet is so different today than 5/10 years ago so you can try to dismiss good examples is silly and acting in bad faith.
Also, it doesn't matter how old an example is: if we can all agree that companies doing this is bed, then we shouldn't allow it. "It was awful 10 years ago, and it would still be awful now, but it hasn't happened recently, so it must all be fine." is very short sighted.
Either net neutrality is good, and we should have it. Or net neutrality is bad, and you dont need "yeah but that was 10 years ago" as your counter. If you can make an argument for "ATT charging you to use facetime is a good thing", then make that argument. Not "but that was so long ago".
"Yeah I agree, those things were awful, lets make sure they happen again"
Multiple major ISPs used to throttle Netflix, so that customers would have a poor experience and switch to the ISP owned streaming service. That stopped the last time net neutrality came up (that was basically WHY it came up).
Right now, if there are no immediately visible negative impacts, it's because ISPs are being cautious to not get regulated, not because they won't do it again.
If companies are doing nothing wrong and are just doing exactly what we want anyway, they would have no issues supporting net neutrality: "That's what we're already doing, it's a good thing!" The fact that they are so adamantly against "don't throttle your competitors traffic" is a huge red flag screaming "thats exactly what they are trying to do".
So I have seen negative impacts from not having net neutrality in the past (netflix throttling), yes.
ISPs have been on relatively good behavior because they know that being evil will motivate net neutrality to be reinstated. Peering extortion is probably distorting competition between streaming companies but it's designed so that consumers don't see it.
In the US the obvious on is mobile providers throttling video streaming and other high bandwidth services.
Globally there are other negative examples. IIRC twitch pulled out of Korea recently because they didn't want to pay ISPs to deliver their content (for which ISPs users also pay).
>I don't really see why people get so worked up about net neutrality.
At the time, there were still remnants of the early ideas about the Internet being a democratizing force. For instance, that it would be possible for anyone to stand up a service and have an equal chance of competing.
It's a very accurate label even if it is a bit imprecise since it doesn't convey anything about the nuances of the policy. You're probably not going to be able to come up with a better name that isn't much longer. Or did you mean that you'd prefer a policy without nuances?
What I mean is that last time there was an argument about "Net Neutrality" - you had people on this forum both arguing for "net neutrality" but on different sides of the nuanced policy. You could say that the "stupid wrong person" just doesn't understand the law - but that is my point - it's a bad name if both sides think it means what they want.
