Net Neutrality and Zero Rating

[Data]

One of Trump's Security Officials was brainstorming some national security ideas and one of them that we know of is for the government to build a 5G network within three years.  This is not proposed legislation, it is merely some ideas that are being discussed in the national security department.

The department thinks that this network would be in the interest of combating against foreign espionage or bad actors as they are known to be called.  Besides this, U.S. citizens will have access to this network for their homes as a means of broadband internet wirelessly like they do their handsets.

The FCC and members of parliament will be against such a large investment of tax payers dollars for a government program which may or may not end up being an epic failure.

The ISP's and lobbyists will be against this because it will likely put out their lights.

U.S. citizens in my opinion will more than likely receive misleading information that does not serve to explain the costs and benefits of such a plan honestly.  One of the negatives would be setting up the people to a government more capable than ever to spying and censorship.  If the estimate of $400 billion dollars is even true, then this is going to have to be budgeted.  Holding a referendum and a survey which asks questions that honestly represent all the outcomes good and bad before allowing the people to vote yes or no will likely not be available as well in my opinion.

This is not all that is going on.  AT&T just sent a letter to congress with their own version of what Net Neutrality should entail called the Internet Bill of Rights.  

This would be a good time now to support an advocacy group or send you're own letters in to congress and let them know you're feeling as a voter for the introduction of a proper legislation which not only allows ISP's and other companies to earn profit but to actually start making decision which benefit the people.

Proper Legislation
- ISP's are aloud to earn profit and grow
- Virtual ISP's must be allowed to lease the internet backbone from the large companies.
-  Host ISP's are not allowed to slow traffic or impose speed limits or data volume caps within reason not just for consumers but for Virtual Internet Service Providers. For example; 3 Terabytes of data 100 Mb down 20 up for $60 month USD
- Business class internet will be anything that uploads faster than 50 Mb/s  Over this and there must be a negotiation on a business level to uphold fair use.
- ISP's including all Virtual ISP's will offer a minimalist package for consumers which will offer a generous amount of at least 20 down 3 up 500 gigs cap for 19.99 + rental and tax to 95% of the population by 2021

 

[te72]

4 hours ago, Data said:

One of Trump's Security Officials was brainstorming some national security ideas and one of them that we know of is for the government to build a 5G network within three years.  This is not proposed legislation, it is merely some ideas that are being discussed in the national security department.

The department thinks that this network would be in the interest of combating against foreign espionage or bad actors as they are known to be called.  Besides this, U.S. citizens will have access to this network for their homes as a means of broadband internet wirelessly like they do their handsets.

The FCC and members of parliament will be against such a large investment of tax payers dollars for a government program which may or may not end up being an epic failure.

The ISP's and lobbyists will be against this because it will likely put out their lights.

U.S. citizens in my opinion will more than likely receive misleading information that does not serve to explain the costs and benefits of such a plan honestly.  One of the negatives would be setting up the people to a government more capable than ever to spying and censorship.  If the estimate of $400 billion dollars is even true, then this is going to have to be budgeted.  Holding a referendum and a survey which asks questions that honestly represent all the outcomes good and bad before allowing the people to vote yes or no will likely not be available as well in my opinion.

 

Proper Legislation
- ISP's are aloud to earn profit and grow
- Virtual ISP's must be allowed to lease the internet backbone from the large companies.
-  Host ISP's are not allowed to slow traffic or impose speed limits or data volume caps within reason not just for consumers but for Virtual Internet Service Providers. For example; 3 Terabytes of data 100 Mb down 20 up for $60 month USD
- Business class internet will be anything that uploads faster than 50 Mb/s  Over this and there must be a negotiation on a business level to uphold fair use.
- ISP's including all Virtual ISP's will offer a minimalist package for consumers which will offer a generous amount of at least 20 down 3 up 500 gigs cap for 19.99 + rental and tax to 95% of the population by 2021

 

For some people, a state provided internet would be helpful. Those that can't reasonably afford internet, for example. However, there would definitely be even greater privacy concerns than there already are. I for one, would never use such a service if it could at all be avoided. I don't trust our government to do the right thing in front of my face, much less on the other end of a modem.

 

The infrastructure to establish such a high speed network, if it were to reach rural areas, would be incredibly massive, as far as investment goes. As a taxpayer, I can't really support it as things are currently. Now, if we were to stop spending hundreds of billions of dollars bombing, occupying, and rebuilding other countries... perhaps that could be a source of funding. Certainly a better and more humane use of that money anyway, at the very least. I've said for a very long time now, that we could solve hunger, poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, if only we'd put the effort and budget in, rather than using it to kill, destroy, and terrorize other countries. I'd rather a country wide accessible internet than how things currently are, as far as how our country spends its taxpayer money.

 

Considering how much money the telecom industry funnels into the pockets of our representatives, I can't see them authorizing something like this anyway. Neat idea, but unlikely to happen, for the very reason you point out. The trouble with the idea of a vote by the people, is that we don't get that option. On a local and sometimes state level, we the people can vote on particular legislation. Federal matters, however, are another matter. I WISH we had the opportunity to vote directly on stuff like this... We in the US are not a democracy however, we've always been a representative republic. If we had a universally informed populace, this would be a good thing, as it once was, in the early days of our country. Anymore though... I wish we had the occasional democratic vote. At the very least, a state by state survey would be nice. Hah, our representatives don't ask us though, they won't bother to own up to anything unless you call them out on their vote after the fact.

 

Now, to address your second major point, AT&T's "internet bill of rights," I like the idea, and I support them on it. I don't know that I've heard their name among the ISP's that have violated neutrality rules and ideals, so perhaps that is more than just rhetoric, perhaps they're telling the truth about their practices. If so, BRAVO to them!

 

I like your list of proper legislation, but I am a bit puzzled by your first item, that ISP's are allowed to earn profit and grow. For all their bellyaching over this legislation that puts a leash around them, and understandably so, they're literally raking in the net profits. We're talking billions here, not an insignificant number. I don't think any of the major ISP's have ever had a net loss in any year, ever. I could be mistaken, but I'd believe it's a safe bet to think they're always making money. Unless you are referring to smaller startups and the like?

[Data]

13 hours ago, te72 said:

I like your list of proper legislation, but I am a bit puzzled by your first item, that ISP's are allowed to earn profit and grow. For all their bellyaching over this legislation that puts a leash around them, and understandably so, they're literally raking in the net profits. We're talking billions here, not an insignificant number. I don't think any of the major ISP's have ever had a net loss in any year, ever. I could be mistaken, but I'd believe it's a safe bet to think they're always making money. Unless you are referring to smaller startups and the like?

What AT&T wants to do is have the tech companies punished along with them.  This means different things for different companies.  AT&T is different from the other large cable internet providers because they own Telephone, Wireless, DirecTV, cable internet and fiber internet.  Comcast, Cox and Charter are still for the most part old school cable tv and internet providers with no major content property.

-They are jealous of Facebook because it makes billions harvesting personal data and selling it to the highest advertisers.  They also have been known to be arbitrators of what is the truth and actively ban accounts which have dissenting opinion. 

-They hate that google makes billions harvesting peoples internet habits and personal data to sell it to the highest advertiser as well as altering algorithms so it ranks news that they want you to see.  They also don’t like google building a fiber network. 

-Twitter is much like facebook in how it harvests you’re data and censors accounts it disagrees with. 

-Amazon is more complicated because they buy alot of goods and so spend over $100 B a year on goods but they also invest their revenue into web streaming services amongst other things so the profit seems lower than it should.  AT&T surely don’t like watching Amazon Prime grow every day by using more and more of AT&T’s network resources with no compensation.

This legislation could be used to serve the people's interest or it may not go the way you think.  This conglomerate has the best lawyers, the best negotiators, the most experience bluffing the government and a license to print money.  To walk into these negotiations unarmed will surely end in AT&T making out like bandits.  

Don’t get me wrong though there will also be good things too such as broadening the internet fairness policies so it applies to all players such as the aforementioned tech companies and not discriminating against data but this will never mean that there won’t be fast lanes.  ISP’s will always need a way to make money and if they are forced to offer $30 internet at 20 down 5 up 500 GB then they will have to charge businesses like Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix and whatever the next big bandwidth hog more money otherwise the deal will be off and they will punish everyone more.

What voters need is access to internet.  Cheap Internet for everyone but not a cap so low that they get hosed on overage charges.  Voters also need to reserve the right as a community to build it’s own network if it desires.  Finally, entrepreneurs must be allowed to lease bandwidth from the backbone without being governed by the host.  This should be fair for both but especially for the new ISP because they are the ones that keep these companies honest.  Otherwise the large ISP's will be guilty of anti-competitive practices.

[te72]

Good points. I don't have much to offer due to having had a long couple days behind me, but any time a company's operating expenses (charging them more for internet) increase, it nearly always ends up being the customer on the receiving end of that increase. That said, a streaming company such as the examples listed above have more or less defined bandwidth needs. They know how much speed they need, therefore they buy X amount of connections so their servers can deliver the speeds their customers expect.

 

Seems to me, on that point, that there is no need for a special "fast lane," you just buy as many lanes as you need at the fastest commercially available speed. If speed tiers are priced like what I've seen, it makes little sense to buy anything less than the fastest, if you need it, because the speeds increase exponentially, where the price goes up more gradually. The idea of special fast lanes for higher bandwidth consumers, or just for those with money, seems anti-competitive to me. Hopefully my points make sense, I'm somewhat tired.

[Data]

Canada has the Telecommunications Act of 1993 which treats broadband providers as common carriers and enforces the spirit of net neutrality.  The "Spirit of Net Neutrality" does not protect illegal websites such as torrent and streaming.

This has left the door open for a different approach by a new coalition called fairplay canada  which consists of 30 members including some of Canada's largest heavyweights like unifor, CBC, Bell, Rogers, corus, and cogeco.  Fairplay wants the CRTC to block "extreme blatant piracy sites" The CRTC would enforce the rules and if a website is blocked by mistake, then they can simply make the case to the Federal Court of Appeal.

This has many people worried because now the judge of websites with the authority to distribute who's copyrighted content will likely be left in the hands of the plaintiff e.g. "Bell Media" and enforced by some bureaucrat in Ottawa.  This is exactly the reason the FCC uses to justify the repeal of Net Neutrality in the U.S.  Overreaching government authority is bad, free and open internet is good.

Canadians have been spoiled by our loose piracy laws making it almost impossible to punish a user from pirating anything from computer games to television programs.  The time will come when Canadians will face actual punishment for pirating content and do what Germany did.  They throttle internet and actually charge people money if they are found using peer to peer as a means of obtaining content illegally.  This has resulted in a huge increase of customers that pay for online streaming services.

 

[te72]

I'm sure you are familiar with, or at least heard of, SOPA and PIPA, both were attempts at legislation to ostensibly rein in online piracy. The intent was noble, the execution would have been anything but. Your last post reminds me a LOT of that point in internet history. Allowing the ISP control over access in any sense is a bad idea. Allowing corporations, no matter who they represent, to control access, is a bad idea, hence why SOPA and PIPA failed to gain much traction in the US.

 

Not sure how it is treated in Canada, but here, sites heavy on piracy tend to get shut down by the FBI, if I recall. DMCA did a lot to give the government teeth to enforce piracy laws here.

[Data]

1 hour ago, te72 said:

I'm sure you are familiar with, or at least heard of, SOPA and PIPA, both were attempts at legislation to ostensibly rein in online piracy. The intent was noble, the execution would have been anything but. Your last post reminds me a LOT of that point in internet history. Allowing the ISP control over access in any sense is a bad idea. Allowing corporations, no matter who they represent, to control access, is a bad idea, hence why SOPA and PIPA failed to gain much traction in the US.

 

Not sure how it is treated in Canada, but here, sites heavy on piracy tend to get shut down by the FBI, if I recall. DMCA did a lot to give the government teeth to enforce piracy laws here.

Canada has the Copyright Modernization Act
It gives alot of protections for consumers to use content for education, satire and even backups but there is one point made where if a digital lock is picked such as with the software program AnyDVD which allows for the easy copying of even the latest protected blurays disks, then it is illegal.  It is also very easy to slap a rudimentary lock onto everything which makes using anything technically illegal.

This act doesn't mention anything about pirate streams using IPTV technology over the internet nor does it allow for enforcement of peer to peer pirates of e.g. HBO's Game of Thrones.

The CRTC which is like the FCC is most likely going to be the arbiter of what is legal or not and then of course the RCMP followed by the justice system. 

From my perspective, I'm looking for weather or not they will punish me with fines or disconnects when I use peer to peer to download HBO content which as of today, ISP's are required to give an infinite amount of warnings to customers but no punishment. 

I will also be watching if crtc will be allowed to block IPTV traffic like user generated reddit streams and underground IPTV services like NFPS.

These are the only two methods I'm aware of besides the caveman days of trying to download 40 different parts from rapidshare or mega.  Stop these and you stop "pirate websites" in my opinion but do I really think this will happen?  I'm not sure, but I'am sure that content creators have the right to enforce the use of their material and the government as well as the CRTC will have to satisfy both sides.

[te72]

Interesting counter point. In the US, you get a few warnings for violations of the DMCA, but after that, your service is canceled. I don't think one would want to be caught further pushing that envelope, lest one run afoul of FBI anti-piracy enforcement.

 

Few, if any sites of such a nature are likely to be based in the US due to the nature of our laws here. That may be part of why our country has such an interest in monitoring any and all traffic going between any and all countries, to satisfy copyright holder's rights. I fear we may be going off on a tangent, even if it is related to the main discussion at hand. Not that I mind, discourse like this is informative, and we'd all do well to learn new things on occasion.

 

CRTC being the arbiter of legality on the use of the internet seems like a slipper slope though. The FCC is mainly a watchdog organization, or at least that is its intended purpose as I understand. The courts are who decides the cases based on existing laws, where the FCC recommends and enforces regulation of the various communication industries. At its core, the FCC *should* be looking out for us, the consumers. Currently, I see it as looking out for the distributors. That is the root of the problem.