Goodbye internet, whatever did we do without you?

[Taem]

News Article

April 24, 2014
Goodbye, Net Neutrality; Hello, Net Discrimination
Posted by Tim Wu

In 2007, at a public forum at Coe College, in Iowa, Presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked about net neutrality. Specifically, “Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint F.C.C. commissioners that support open Internet principles like net neutrality?”

“The answer is yes,” Obama replied. “I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet—which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

If reports in the Wall Street Journal are correct, Obama’s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas Wheeler, has proposed a new rule that is an explicit and blatant violation of this promise. In fact, it permits and encourages exactly what Obama warned against: broadband carriers acting as gatekeepers and charging Web sites a payola payment to reach customers through a “fast lane.”

Late last night Wheeler released a statement accusing the Wall Street Journal of being “flat-out wrong.” Yet the Washington Post has confirmed, based on inside sources, that the new rule gives broadband providers “the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers … in a commercially reasonable matter.” That’s telecom-speak for payola payments, and a clear violation of Obama’s promise.

This is what one might call a net-discrimination rule, and, if enacted, it will profoundly change the Internet as a platform for free speech and small-scale innovation. It threatens to make the Internet just like everything else in American society: unequal in a way that deeply threatens our long-term prosperity.

Some history may help explain the situation. The new rule gives broadband providers what they’ve wanted for about a decade now: the right to speed up some traffic and degrade others. (With broadband, there is no such thing as accelerating some traffic without degrading other traffic.) We take it for granted that bloggers, start-ups, or nonprofits on an open Internet reach their audiences roughly the same way as everyone else. Now they won’t. They’ll be behind in the queue, watching as companies that can pay tolls to the cable companies speed ahead. The motivation is not complicated. The broadband carriers want to make more money for doing what they already do. Never mind that American carriers already charge some of the world’s highest prices, around sixty dollars or more per month for broadband, a service that costs less than five dollars to provide. To put it mildly, the cable and telephone companies don’t need more money.

In 2007, Obama understood all of this. Without net neutrality, the result would be “much better quality from the Fox News site and you’d be getting rotten service from the mom and pop sites.” That year, he swore to me personally that he was committed to defending net neutrality. Unfortunately, his F.C.C. chairman is in the process of violating a core promise to innovators, to the technology sector, and, really, to all of us who use the Internet.

Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and the author of “The Master Switch.” He has previously served as a senior advisor to the Federal Trade Commission and the chair of Free Press, an Internet advocacy organization.

Above: Obama at Coe College, in 2007. Photograph by David Lienemann/AP.

If this is true, then this is the most disappointing thing I've read in a long time!

[LavCat]

My understanding is that it is the judicial branch, not the executive branch, that has stopped the FCC from enforcing net neutrality.

[Alram]

It was precipitated by a court ruling Brought by Verizon

The current proposal and reactions to it are so full of double speak that it is hard to follow.

I wonder why the court ruling has not been appealed by the Obama administration if they are really committed to a free internet.

[kandrathe]

I think the bigger issue will be that there will be "haves" and "have nots". So, say you had a really great idea for some dot com startup. Your success may depend on who you know with fast bandwidth, or if your VC angel investors are willing to shell out the $$ for high speed. But, not so much importance on the quality of your idea. Or, maybe it's just a hobby site where now you are forever riding the coach section of the slow bandwidth bus.

Anyway, it will tend to bifurcate the internet. There will be an information superhighway, and the back roads off the beaten track, way out in the boonies, take a left, wade through that swamp, climb rickety ladder into the tree fort, swing on the rope over the river ravine, and there is where the rest of the net will be found.

[Lissa]

Ok, what every is misreading here is this new rule doesn't affect what can and cannot go over an ISP's lines, what this new rule is that companies can pay for preferential bandwidth access. Thus, if NetFlix pays ComCast extra money to be one of the high priority service over ComCast's network, then they get a large chunk of bandwidth assigned to them, but ComCast does not limit access to other companies that don't pay that additional fee. The whole original basis of netneutrality was that without it, ISPs could outright block various companies. This ruling still makes blocking illegal, what it opens up is companies getting preferential access to bandwidth.

[kandrathe]

... what it opens up is companies getting preferential access to bandwidth.

Does it ensure that Netflix and Hulu get charged the same rate? If not, cannot Comcast give Netflix a low rate, and give Hulu a higher rate? What happens if a bandwidth provider also owns content distribution? Wouldn't they give themselves the best bandwidth for cost, and shut out their competitors who must pay for bandwidth?

The FCC exists because back in the advent of radio, with enough power you could overpower the little stations for hundreds of miles around your broadcast tower. They regulated the frequency, and the power output at various times of day even. Bandwidth was a limited resource, and they licensed it some what fairly. It's odd for a libertarian like me to advocate for regulators, but these limited resource (inter)national infrastructures (wires, pipelines, highways, rails, air traffic) cry for an objectively managed approach. There are times when the laissez-faire, some what anarchic model forces better competition where the consumer benefits most. Sometimes regulation (e.g. enforcing an artificial shortage) causes massive price distortions where markets (and consumers) suffer.

I believe that neutrality for the internet means every data packet should be treated equally by the network. A few years ago I helped set up a multi-state private network for VOIP, and to enable a bunch of radio stations to share a common audio content database. There is already the means to buy big pipes if you desire, they are just private and not on the internet. If Netflix can pay Comcast to shape packets such that theirs have higher priority, it means less for everything else (games, skype, youtube, vimeo, twitch, whatever).

Like I said above, if you have the $$ to buy the access you will be in the dedicated fast lane, if not, you'll be stuck in traffic.

[Hammerskjold]

This ruling still makes blocking illegal, what it opens up is companies getting preferential access to bandwidth.

That still kinda grates my cheese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyuIiG4c4Go

I'm not 100% with the guy when he talks about Software as Service, and I'm with Abe Simpson when it comes to the all praise teh cloud etc.



But the majority of what he's talking about, I can definitely see and personally agree with.

Especially at the 8:06 mark.

Does it ensure that Netflix and Hulu get charged the same rate? If not, cannot Comcast give Netflix a low rate, and give Hulu a higher rate?

I'm following the U.S. side of this because frankly, what happens in your country will very likely ripple in mine.

But as a recent (at least officially) "cable cutter", and sure as hell won't be going back. (Hello Netflix and free over the air antennae!)

My take is Comcast and it's ilk sees Netflix, and anything that is not within their own controlled sphere as their mortal enemy.

What happens if a bandwidth provider also owns content distribution? Wouldn't they give themselves the best bandwidth for cost, and shut out their competitors who must pay for bandwidth?

Egg-sac-tumondo.

Net based tv? Baad. Cable TV? Goood. Net based tv that is owned by a cable TV behemoth? Why that would be...Double plus good.

But why shut them out, that may get people riled up. Much easier to maybe, say there will be no data cap\count if you go with -our- data and content plan. Anything that is not in our subsidiary or ownership, yeah that will count against you. But if its in under our umbrella, why of course not. Because we're just nice like that. Like a kind old grampa who just want to watch some cable tv with you.

So won't you stop killing your kindly old grampa, and start subscribing to cable television?

/this post is brought to you by:

ComcastTimeWarnerGeneralAtomicsCyberdinesystems,

A subsidiary of Renraku & Weyland Yutani Zaibatsu Inc.

[Taem]

Net based tv? Baad. Cable TV? Goood. Net based tv that is owned by a cable TV behemoth? Why that would be...Double plus good.

I'm a little more than curious to see what a paid Google internet connection has to offer in the coming years at 2tb per second connection speeds. I'm willing to bet there won't be any tie-downs with Google, however I can almost 100% guarantee advertising will find its way into the system. Based on this notion, I'm equally curious to see how the other cable companies adapt when Google starts taking over offering net neutrality to all companies and the small guys, assuming this is their motto, which they've said it is thus far.

[Hammerskjold]

I'm a little more than curious to see what a paid Google internet connection has to offer in the coming years at 2tb per second connection speeds. I'm willing to bet there won't be any tie-downs with Google, however I can almost 100% guarantee advertising will find its way into the system.

The Google Fibre Project? Yeah I'm following that with interest as well.

It's a safe bet to make regarding advertising. That kind of big data and meta data is simply too delicious of a temptation to pass up. They may not show up in the usual way, but they definitely want to be in that space for sure.

Based on this notion, I'm equally curious to see how the other cable companies adapt when Google starts taking over offering net neutrality to all companies and the small guys, assuming this is their motto, which they've said it is thus far.

Well so far from what I've seen, some of these cable companies are still trying to figure out why more people are abandoning their traditional subscriptions plans.

Considering that the 2 major TV monopoly in my area also owns the phone line\DSL and Cable infrastructure, and also owns tv channels and other media, I'm increasingly loathed to support them directly with my bucks.

Shiva forbid, some of these overgrown dinosaurs dream will come true. The 'Net, becomes their old TV model. Personally, all I can say is a disgusted 'ugh..' to that idea.

[kandrathe]

I like this video explanation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M

[Taem]

I like this video explanation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M

I just shared that video on fb. I hope many people see it and feel moved enough to write the appropriate parties, however I have serious doubts anything will change since it seems greed and power rule the day. Has our government ever been any more blatantly corrupt than its been this last decade? I've never seen so many civil liberties trampled in the name of social reform, regulations meant to protect us trampled or re-worked, laws setup to limit donations to campaigns struck down, laws altered to allow torture or detaining foreign nationals, etc. I feel that winning the battle over net neutrality would be nice, but would hardly scratch the surface of the real problem currently plaguing our country, which is lobbyists dictating law to the greedy congressmen doing whatever it takes to stay on top. I've never liked how members of congress are basically in there for life once elected; in my opinion, I'd like to see elections every 2-years to *maximum* of 4-years in office, else congressmen they get too powerful for their own good and form alliances, and do what is in their own interests, to remain in power instead of looking after the interest of the people they were elected to serve. Old rules struck down within the last decade limiting donations from lobbyists in general and for election campaigns need to be brought back to control corruption. Anyways, some of my thoughts in this rant.

[kandrathe]

I just shared that video on fb. I hope many people see it and feel moved enough to write the appropriate parties, however I have serious doubts anything will change since it seems greed and power rule the day.

I wrote letters to my representatives in Congress asking them to support the classification of broadband ISPs as common carriers. Also, I added my comments to the accruing millions at the FCC comment site.

Has our government ever been any more blatantly corrupt than its been this last decade? I've never seen so many civil liberties trampled in the name of social reform, regulations meant to protect us trampled or re-worked, laws setup to limit donations to campaigns struck down, laws altered to allow torture or detaining foreign nationals, etc. I feel that winning the battle over net neutrality would be nice, but would hardly scratch the surface of the real problem currently plaguing our country, which is lobbyists dictating law to the greedy congressmen doing whatever it takes to stay on top.

The short answer is yes. There were more corrupt administrations in our history (e.g. U.S. Grant, or W.G. Harding.) It's the Lord Acton thing. It happens when the people become complacent and ignorant (tired/apathetic) of what their representatives are doing. However, I refute the argument that "would be nice, but would hardly scratch the surface of the real problem currently plaguing our country". I learned recently the Brits have a word for it, "Whataboutism". I just think we need to pick a cause, or twenty and do something about it. Maybe if activism was marketed as vehemently as skin moisturizers... I dunno...

I've never liked how members of congress are basically in there for life once elected; in my opinion, I'd like to see elections every 2-years to *maximum* of 4-years in office, else congressmen they get too powerful for their own good and form alliances, and do what is in their own interests, to remain in power instead of looking after the interest of the people they were elected to serve.

Check in to the fanfare of the STOCK (stops congress from using their secret knowledge for insider trading) act, and its quiet recent demise signed by the same president who trumpeted its original passage. Term limits have pros and cons. The downside is a perpetual newbie congress that is ineffective due to incompetence. The bigger problem is not the term, but the public servant. If we held them accountable, and fully participated in the democratic process, we'd be a bit better off. The other part of the equation is that the people are easily bamboozled due to either blind partisanship, or the aforementioned ignorance (tired/apathetic). Here in my state in 2013, the legislature passed a $2 billion tax levy across the board to shore up a $1.1 billion tax shortfall. Then, a year later they've mysteriously discovered they have a $1 billion surplus. Funny that, how math works. Now the same legislature has patted themselves on the backs for passing about $400 million in "tax cuts". Of course, the "cuts" are not returned to those who paid. It's smoke and mirrors and the ultimate in political deception or marketing if you will.

Old rules struck down within the last decade limiting donations from lobbyists in general and for election campaigns need to be brought back to control corruption. Anyways, some of my thoughts in this rant.

Our Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of political speech, and therefore limiting them risks infringing on 1st amendment rights. The traditions of stare decisis (precedent) would indicate that unless there is an overwhelming change in the underlying assumptions, that no significant change can be made in limiting campaign contributions (i.e.political speech). What can be done would be in transparency. We can make daily/weekly campaign contribution disclosure a requirement without impinging free speech. The people can then decide who is being bought. And, we can be more vigilant in calling out and prosecuting quid pro quo (corruption) deals when they occur.

[Occhidiangela]

Dear Mr Wu:
You believed a political candidate who was pandering for votes.
He was either lying, talking out his backside, or maybe a bit of both.
He most likely really had no understanding of the point involved.
He told a room full of suckers what they wanted to hear.

And now you are upset.

Rube.

Politicians have been doing this since the orators of the Athenian Democracy.

[kandrathe]

Dear Mr Wu:
You believed a political candidate who was pandering for votes.
He was either lying, talking out his backside, or maybe a bit of both.
He most likely really had no understanding of the point involved.
He told a room full of suckers what they wanted to hear.

And now you are upset.

Rube.

Politicians have been doing this since the orators of the Athenian Democracy.

Well, you know it would be a forgivable fanboy mistake if he were merely a fawning liberal and/or tingle challenged, such as Chris Matthews. But, Wu's bio line says, "Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and the author of “The Master Switch.” He has previously served as a senior advisor to the Federal Trade Commission and the chair of Free Press, an Internet advocacy organization."

He should have been close enough the DC to have developed a healthy bit of cynicism and to have been jaded enough to know better. In exploring deeper... You know if Tim Wu's lost that loving feeling... Then the Dems got some issues over the next two election cycles. Most of my radical liberal friends feel entirely betrayed. "Change" is a nice vague campaign mantra, and it meant something different to all who "believed". I'm not saying the pains of having a President McCain, or Romney would have been less. It's just been so long since we've had a leader who is in sync with a major portion of the bell curve of the electorate.

Maybe something is wrong with our candidate choices when consistently, the elected leader of the country has trouble maintaining greater than 50% approval rating.