
The internet already lost its neutrality - noncoml
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2017/11/23/commentary/world-commentary/internet-already-lost-neutrality/#.WhnNEGKIbDs
======
jstewartmobile
Typical Megan McArdle libertarian "thinkpiece".

Acknowledges the problem...

' _Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a
handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for
regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong
as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger;
while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability
that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear
and read._ '

Yet refuses to blaspheme the Lord our free market:

' _Is this a problem? I think it is. But that doesn’t mean that the internet
would get better if Google and Facebook and Apple and Amazon were required to
make every decision with a regulator hanging over their shoulder to decide
whether it was sufficiently “neutral.”_ '

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That's not even half of it. It's just a complete misunderstanding of the
problem.

> Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a
> handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for
> regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as
> strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs

The difference is that the markets are entirely different. It's possible to
have a Facebook-like system with no Facebook-like entity in control of it, the
canonical examples being email or the web. It's not a natural monopoly.

It isn't even a real monopoly at all. There is Twitter, Tumblr, the Google
thing(s), the Microsoft thing(s), actual unaffiliated web pages, email, etc.
Most people use Facebook _and_ Twitter. Basically nobody uses Comcast _and_
Charter.

There is a fair argument that we should adopt policies to bolster open systems
like web/email over closed systems like Facebook so there is more vigorous
competition. But the idea that we should enshrine Facebook as a permanent
monopoly and then have the government regulate its content is the complete
opposite of that. It's ludicrous.

And that isn't what network neutrality is anyway. Network neutrality doesn't
regulate content. It says nothing about what anyone can print, it just says
that everyone can buy ink on the same terms.

~~~
jdoliner
> And that isn't what network neutrality is anyway. Network neutrality doesn't
> regulate content. It says nothing about what anyone can print, it just says
> that everyone can buy ink on the same terms.

What do you make of the case of Gab then? They're a competitor to Facebook,
Twitter etc. They're not allowed on either app store and they've had their
site taken down by multiple domain registrars. Are they being allowed to buy
ink on the same terms? No, they're not, I guess we explain that away by
saying: "well... they're hate speech." That's going to convince some people,
some other people will take a look at that and say: "Wait, if they're hate
speech maybe I'm hate speech too, maybe this whole net neutrality thing isn't
actually meant for me." Which is why net neutrality has suddenly become a much
more partisan issue.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> They're not allowed on either app store

The app stores _are_ monopolies. The FTC absolutely should be slapping them
for half the stuff they're doing.

But the app stores still aren't _natural_ monopolies. They wouldn't be
monopolies if people could install apps the same way they do on desktops.
There is no need to regulate their content, what's needed is to restore normal
competition to those markets.

~~~
ryukafalz
>The app stores are monopolies.

Only on iOS. There are several alternative app stores for Android, and you can
install apps the same way you do on desktops (after flipping a switch in
settings).

~~~
coding123
Still a monopoly like that, see Internet explorer case
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp).

~~~
xbmcuser
Would have been true if the largest manfactureres of Android phones didn't put
their own browser and other apps. Samsung has its own browser and Chinese
manufacturers use Chinese browsers. So chrome is rarely the default in more
than half the android phones releases every year.

------
rocqua
The argument "We've lost net neutrality because some people refuse hosting /
claim domains" misses the definition of net-neutrality. Specifically, net-
neutrality is about treating all traffic the same.

It would be horrible if ISPs refused, on their own initiative, to serve
certain traffic. However, this is a case of people refusing to host. Now maybe
hosting at `web-scale' is only possible with such a small set of providers as
to be an issue, but that is not relevant to the net-neutrality discussion.

~~~
jdoliner
But all of the supposed goals of net neutrality, competition, everyone having
a voice, etc. seem to be impinged at the hosting / domain layer. So if the
justification for net neutrality is that we might lose those things... and
people feel like they already don't have those things, why would they care
about net neutrality?

~~~
namuol
> people feel like they already don't have [a perfectly free Internet where
> everyone has a voice], why would they care about net neutrality?

The Internet is dominated by Tech Giants, but deregulating ISPs will probably
only make the problem worse by allowing Tech Giants to set the price for
preferential treatment by ISPs, thereby raising the barrier to entry for
competitors and raising prices for regular consumers.

~~~
jdoliner
Hopefully you can see how "this will probably only make the problem worse"
doesn't quite stir people's stumps the way "this will create a new problem
that we've worked very hard to avoid up until this point."

~~~
namuol
> this will create a new problem that we've worked very hard to avoid up until
> this point

Sorry, could you elaborate? Not sure what you meant here.

Do you just mean to suggest that the "net-neutrality-is-good-for-competition"
argument will not persuade the average person, or something else?

~~~
jdoliner
I'm saying people will be less likely to care that repealing net neutrality
will hurt them if they feel like they're already experiencing the ill effects
while it's law.

~~~
namuol
I'm not so sure. People with life insurance still opt for medical insurance.
:shrug:

------
freeflight
The article gives good background about FCC attempts to regulate ISP and the
troubles of finding the right framework for it. Where it all falls apart, at
least for me, is when it tries to use The Daily Stormer as an example of how
net neutrality is "already lost".

And I'm not even sure where to start to voice my problems with that framing.
For example, the claim that there's "nothing illegal" about it, which is
factually wrong as lots of the content on Daily Stormer would easily break a
couple of German laws, and probably laws of a few other countries, as Germany
isn't the only country with laws in regards to Holocaust denial.

While I don't know the specifics about the hosting situation of TDS, I doubt
what happened there was "a small number of private companies decided to
exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read", like the
author claims.

That sentence pretty much stylizes TDS as a kind of victim by some ominous
international conspiracy, I'm quite certain that's not at all what happened,
just like I'm very certain that TDS is still around and reachable for anybody
who would want to read it.

~~~
jdoliner
> For example, the claim that there's "nothing illegal" about it, which is
> factually wrong as lots of the content on Daily Stormer would easily break a
> couple of German laws

This isn't an argument that an American ISP could use to censor content under
our current regulation, why should a CDN be allowed to?

> I doubt what happened there was "a small number of private companies decided
> to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read"

In the words of Cloudflare's CEO: “I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone
shouldn’t be allowed on the internet.” So I'd say your doubt is misplace,
that's a pretty accurate description of what did happen.

Whether or not you consider TDS a victim of some ominous international
conspiracy is up to you. But they're certainly not a beneficiary of a
regulatory environment in which the internet is neutral and views can't be
silence. At least not the American internet, as you pointed out, they're still
up but they had to move their hosting to Hong Kong to stay up. So I think it's
fair to say that American net neutrality failed them.

Now, of course, you may be of the mind: "Who cares? They're Nazis they deserve
what they got." But as soon as you go down the path of "we treat sites
neutrally... we just treat some sites more neutrally than others." It begins
to erode your support as people wonder if they'll eventually be part of the
excepted group that doesn't get net neutrality.

~~~
wpietri
> why should a CDN be allowed to?

Because CDNs don't have monopoly/oligopoly power over most US consumers. The
major ISPs do.

Indeed, the reason we can let CDNs decide what to host is precisely that we
have neutral networks that will connect consumers to many CDNs with all sorts
of hosting policies.

------
namuol
> our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of
> firms, most especially Google and Facebook

Exactly why we need to keep net neutrality.

It helps keep the marketplace fair by preventing carriers from charging extra
for preferential treatment; something that Big Tech Co. will effectively set
the price of, but most upstarts won't be able to afford.

------
LeoJiWoo
Well conservatives/populists definitely think so. They have been quite clear
on social media, that they are angry at being censored on youtube, google,
facebook etc. Some even went as far as saying they trust Comcast to be more
neutral than silicon valley.

I fear net neutrality is over, unless we can get bipartisan support, but that
won't happen unless more parts of the internet ecosystem get enforced
neutrality.

~~~
fareesh
This is an important point. Now that the chance of losing neutrality, and
therefore the possibility of censorship is affecting everyone, there is an
expectation from conservatives, who are routinely silenced on the internet, to
join hands to preserve the "neutral" status quo.

It isn't even just purely politically conservative folks either. For example,
Dr. Gad Saad spoke at a Free Speech event in Toronto very recently, and the
video was demonetized on YouTube before it had even been published. I have
disposable income, I watch Dr Saad's videos. I wouldn't mind viewing ads
before his videos. Why would _I_ think less of an advertiser whose ad showed
up as a preroll? Am I not the intended audience? Or is it that my impressions
aren't allowed because I enjoy Dr. Saad's content? What if I was highly
critical of his content and I wanted to watch it, are my video views still not
worth anything? The only reason I am on YouTube.com for the duration of the
video is because of Dr. Saad. If YouTube is making money off my presence, why
can't Dr. Saad? For the advertiser, I am the product, so what does he have to
do with anything?

------
Terr_
> Those regulations [Title II common-carriers] were more concerned about
> things like controlling market power than, say, promoting innovation.

Why is a strength of the approach being presented as a weakness? The only kind
of "innovation" that could suffer is the kind that involves extortive payment
plans and anti-competitive business deals... exactly what people were worried
about.

> Those of us old enough to remember the telephone service looked like in the
> 1970s, before the FCC unwound a little

WTF? It's not that the FCC "unwound" from some kind of pro-consumer zeal, it's
that the breakup of the "Ma Bell" mega-conglomerate began.

------
Animats
The Daily Stormer is back up.[1]

[1] [https://dailystormer.hk/](https://dailystormer.hk/)

~~~
userbinator
There is something rather ironic about a white supremacist site using the TLD
of an Asian country well known for its extensive censorship. (Yes, I know Hong
Kong is somewhat special, but it has been a part of China since 1997.)

~~~
sverige
Especially ironic considering they're based in the U.S., which used to be the
home of free speech.

"OMG, they're nazis! Shut 'em down!" is the sadly unironic position of most
who live in what was once the epicenter of the free speech movement, and is
now the epicenter of censorious impulses.

~~~
0134340
Doubly ironic in that their conservative brethren endorsed NN, or the wishes
of the corporations over the notions of free speech or data equality,
regardless of content or source.

------
hugh4life
I'm agnostic on the rightness or wrongness of net neutrality, but net
neutrality makes cord cutting more viable... something Trump supporters who
dislike being forced to subsidize certain types of content through bundled
packages should be able to appreciate.

"In a world without net neutrality, your ISP may offer one video service for
free while charging for Netflix, which eventually means you pay more. Oh wait,
Comcast, among others, already tried that trick in 2014. In 2017, the ISPs
will get away with it."

[http://awfulannouncing.com/streaming/proposed-net-
neutrality...](http://awfulannouncing.com/streaming/proposed-net-neutrality-
repeal-sports-impacts.html)

------
nkkollaw
I have followed this but not that much since I'm not American.

I'm wondering, if the laws pass, can people use Tor to keep the actual site
they visit hidden, and avoid caps?

Also, of course this would create a precedence--although I doubt we would pass
such a law in Europe since companies here are not as infiltrated into the
government as in the States--, but would the end of Net neutrality in the
States directly affect other countries, and how?

~~~
philipov
Anyone using Tor will get capped by default.

~~~
drb91
Or just blocked.

------
mlazos
Ugh this article was so frustrating to read. To say “oh look a nazi website
can’t find a hosting service” == the internet is already not neutral is such a
straw man argument. Even if hosting services were censoring everything it
clearly doesn’t help the problem to allow ISP’s to censor what traffic goes
through their infrastructure on top of that. This article misses the key point
of NN - it’s that ISP’s already will not have competition due to high barriers
to entry (case in point Google is even winding down their fiber investments).
To compare ISPs to Facebook, G and amazon is apples and oranges - it currently
takes very little upfront cost to host a website and “compete” with them.
Their monopolies are purely because they provide good quality services that
consumers want. ISPs on the other hand have zero competition in most areas and
are natural monopolies due to the amount of money (and lobbying) required to
build network infrastructure. Using that power to force people to use their
services or pay a fee to access others is classic vertical integration and
shouldn’t be allowed.

------
mandelbulb
Following the same logic of this article's line of argumentation, I'd say
hacker news lost its entire value because it allowed such a horrid submission
to gain 75+ points.

------
sddfd
The argument in the article is deeply flawed. It goes like this:

With net neutrality, ISPs would be over-regulated, and competition/ease of
market entry would be hampered.

The article then goes on to claim this competition is needed, because Google
and Facebook already have so much power over the internet.

But this is deeply flawed, because big compabies will only have more power
over the net without net neutrality: they can just pay for the net to behave
as they want.

~~~
ironchef253
This is not the logic of the article.

The article says that Title II is pointless over-regulation which creates
danger for ISPs, which it is. Imagine if I created 700 rules for what you can
do every day and promised to “selectively apply” those rules based on how I
feel today. Would you be ok with that? Any mood change on my part (correlating
with a change in FCC leadership) and I could ruin your life. Those are not
good conditions under which to build a long term business. If you had that
hanging over your head, you wouldn’t be happy either.

People have been brainwashed to think that Net Neutrality == Title II
regulation. That is incorrect. The principal of Net Neutrality is far more
important than Title II. Title II is just the wrong tool for the job and
causes a lot of additional damage in addition to supporting Net Neutrality.

Watching Facebook, Google and Twitter demoting and removing opinions and
websites they don’t like (aka not advertiser friendly) is much more sinister
than what the ISPs are able to / are likely to do.

Censorship by search algorithm is far more dangerous than removal of Title II,
which has downsides but is not anywhere near as apocalyptic as what people are
saying about it online.

I am frustrated at how many people on here do so little research into their
own opinions, they just look online and see what Twitter or reddit are saying
and say: “ok, sounds good I believe that.”

Please take the approach of trying to poke holes in your own opinions before
adopting them.

~~~
pseudalopex
Title II is the only tool the FCC currently has to enforce net neutrality.
It's also what was in place until the mid-2000s. It doesn't change the FCC
rulemaking process, which often takes years from start to implementation, is
subject to judicial review, specifically disallows arbitrary and capricious
changes, and can be overridden any time Congress likes. The claims that Title
II classification did/will stifle investment and Section 706 classification
did/will encourage it aren't supported by the record of the last 20 years.

------
rdiddly
Yes yes, let big legacy companies do whatever they want! And stifle the little
guys! It'll help innovation!

Anyone see any problems with that argument?

~~~
jstewartmobile
I like her writing, but it would be fun to lock her in a room with the old
ARPA guys, let her tell them how the government is going to stifle technology,
then watch what happens.

