Net Neutrality is a specter, used to frighten the meek and weak willed into begging the government to control their lives even more. Increased competition addresses any potential issue that the Net Neutrality crowd is worried about. Regulation will never be an suitable answer if what we want is a free and open internet, as "free" and "open" are the antithesis of "regulation," by definition.

The conundrum exists because there is currently no potential for "increased competition" in the home ISP space. There are very large areas of the country wherein consumers have only one or two broadband services to choose from, so the ISP oligopolies and monopolies in those areas have no incentive at all to provide neutral connections.

Because of the requirement for physical infrastructure all the way to the premises, potential competitors (other than Google) will simply never be able to afford to build what they need to compete.

This total lack of competition is the ONLY reason any government regulation is/was required to ensure the net remains neutral.

As this article points out, mesh networks may be one of the only viable options to bring actual competition to the space. I'm not sure our Wi-Fi technology is ready for this, though.

Because of the requirement for physical infrastructure all the way to the premises, potential competitors (other than Google) will simply never be able to afford to build what they need to compete.

In other words, net neutrality isn't important enough to customers that they're willing to pay for it..?

Customers already pay for neutral access, unless you think paying $50 a month to a firm that pockets 95% plus of that payment in pure profit isn't paying for it.

As to whether net neutrality is "important enough" for customers to pay for additional firms to build redundant last-mile infrastructure... the truth, as I'm sure you know, is that the phone and cable companies already had much of that infrastructure built prior to broadband's invention, so there was never going to be an economical case for other firms to rebuild that infrastructure, not to mention a common sense case for doing so. Since the infrastructure, in most places, already exists, and was built and owned by one or two companies already, the monopoly also already existed. If broadband firms want to offer a $5/month throttled internet access plan and a $50/month neutral plan, they could've done so a decade ago, and we could've determined how important net neutrality was on a per customer basis. Instead, the firms wanted to charge customers monopoly prices for continually reduced bandwidth, charging both ends of the pipe for the same bandwidth and then gouge-pricing on top of that. Net neutrality in the form of common carrier rules application is a no-brainer: it logically fits with what's being sent down the pipes: bits of data that are more similar to electrons or water than not. The irony being the cable co's could have avoided this common-sense regulation by sticking to massive greed instead of insanely massive greed.

Where exactly do you get your "95% plus" numbers? I am a network engineer for a moderately sized ISP, and our margins aren't anywhere near that.

I'm talking about the cable companies. I don't even know what a "moderately sized ISP" is in the US. There are what, five companies that control all broadband and they are all huge.

My company is a fixed wireless ISP with about 200,000 subscribers in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Utah, Idaho, and Nevada. There are WISPs like us all over the country.There are FAR more than 5 companies that control broadband. Yet another misconception promoted be the Net Neutrality crowd.

So you're saying there are companies like yours all over the country? And your subscribers, are they regular consumers, businesses? How do idjits like me find companies like yours?

In many areas of the country, yes, there are. We cover Denver, Dallas/ Ft. Worth, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Boise, Omaha, Des Moines, as well as many other smaller metropolitan areas. There are areas of the country that make it hard even for a fixed wireless provider like my company to do business. Los Angeles and New York City come to mind. It is true that in areas such as those Comcast or Time-Warner have veritable monopolies on service, but even in those instances it is because of successful lobbying of local municipalities that this is the case. So even in the instances where I believe that Net Neutrality proponents have a legitimate gripe, it is the government-in this case local governments-that are the problem. You would be much better served petitioning your city government to roll back the red tape that blocks companies like Google Fiber from laying new infrastructure, like easing public right-if-way access and lessening restrictions on attaining easements. Asking the FCC to regulate the single greatest exercise in the decentralization of power in the history of humanity is a losing proposition, for the consumer and the ISP, in my opinion that is. Enabling competition is all that is required to address the concerns of the Net Neutrality crowd.

This is what Google says about the issue...

http://www.engadget.com/201...

It depresses me that this is just another instance where our "leaders", be they in government or elsewhere, refuse to level with the American people in an honest way and explain what is going on. People are for NN because of the fear of fast/slow lanes, which, given the current status where most of us only enjoy one or at best two wired ISP offerings, is a legit concern. If Google wishes to it can easily explain to people the things you are saying. All they have to do is put it up their frickin' search page. I guess they don't wish to annoy powerful potential allies/adversaries, but again, that's what's wrong with this country isn't it. Too many power struggles and not enough working together with honesty and good intent. Title II may do as you suggest, and wipe out any competition for the large ISP's, which is likely why they passed it in the first place. Something didn't feel right about how it happened, that much I can definitely say. Wheeler and his cronies caved too easily. Since when do the people get what they want anymore in this country, 4 million emails or not. Its what they do: tell us they're giving us what we want but in the wording/fine print they shaft us. Most of us don't have the time or knowledge to understand the fine print, and since its a constant bait and switch being pulled on us we inevitably get screwed.

Now I see why you don't like net neutrality - it would prevent charging fees on the inbound traffic that your customers want and expect, like say netflix.

My network installs, at no charge to Netflix, Netflix proxy servers that actually prioritize Netflix traffic across the network, thereby benefitting Netflix, our subscribers, and us. Like most 'Net Neutrality' types, your arguments are based on assumptions and worst case scenarios, with no real world quantification.

It's great that your company *chooses* to be responsible. My providers does not. My local cable company, comcast, is not responsible and the only way they will be become that way it being legally forced. In my town, netflix was terrible, and only if you switched your dns and used a non-local netflix site could you get good streaming. I would switch in a second to another provider if there was one in my area. There are some places with DSL in my town, but my neighborhood does not currently have it, also some office towers have 1 gig wireless internet, but comcast is my only choice. I believe the only way they will improve is through legal actions, including forcing competition.

Customers already pay for neutral access

Pretty sure they're paying for what they're agreeing to in the contract, whatever that may be.

a firm that pockets 95% plus of that payment in pure profit

You're referring to GPM, which doesn't take all of the company's expenses into account, such as infrastructure investments, Comcast's ROIC is 5%, TW's is -1%. Don't Be Evil Google's is 16%, and beloved Apple's is 32%, for comparison.

Actually, there's another test to see if that "95%" figure is meaningful: How many companies are flocking to get a piece of that? High profit margins attract tons of investor attention. People risk fortunes far lower ROI. Why isn't that the case here? If competition isn't permitted, it's those particular laws you need to focus on, and any company shenanigans will be reigned-in by competitors. If competition is permitted, then that 95% figure is BS, or else there would be ample competition and we wouldn't be having this argument.

so there was never going to be an economical case for other firms to rebuild that infrastructure

There's no economic case for it if customers don't want it. In fact, the only question you need to ask to know if customers in a given area are getting the right amount of broadband is, "Is it legal for a new company to come and offer them service?" People's wants are boundless. But it's how they spend their resources that demonstrate what is truly important to them.

could've determined how important net neutrality was on a per customer basis

You can determine it well enough based on how many customers choose the current alternatives.

continually reduced bandwidth

Bandwidth has been continually increasing, both in terms of what is offered and in terms of what broadband customers are using.

http://faculty.chicagobooth...

"Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."

https://www.aei.org/wp-cont...

...looked specifically at consumer Internet traffic. When considering only traffic that originates on, ends on, or otherwise touches a consumer device, however, the results are nearly identical to the measures of total traffic.

The US world share of consumer Internet traffic, at 31.5 percent, is actually higher than its share of total traffic. Per capita consumer traffic is 49.8 gigabytes per month (see figure 3), and consumer traffic per Internet user is 56.7 gigabytes per month (see figure 4). This is 7.6 times the global per capita average and 3.2 times the global per user average. It is 2.3 times Japan’s per user consumer traffic and 2.7 times that of Western Europe.

...

Over the past five years, the US share of total global traffic has held steady at around 30 percent. During this period, the world has added more than 1 billion Internet users, and the United States has added only around 40 million.

The United States is maintaining its share of total traffic in the face of a boom in non-US Internet adoption, a fact reflected in widening per capita and per user gaps favoring the United States. In sum, the United States is home to 4 percent of the world’s population, 10 percent of its Internet users, 25 percent of its broadband investment, and 30 percent of its Internet traffic.

Further, more than 96% of US households have at least 2 providers offering at least 6mbps/1.5mbps, which is plenty. It may not let you stream Netflix to 2 different devices in your house at the same time, but it is more than enough for access to email, news sites, blogs, educational sites, and discussion forums.

Net neutrality in the form of common carrier rules application is a no-brainer

Whatever infrastructure is in place when common carrier rules are enacted is what you're stuck with for a very, very long time. Your price may fall a little bit. Speeds may fall a bit, too. You're certainly not going to be getting fibre if you don't already have it. Rural and poor communities will be especially hard hit the policy. Few companies are going to take all of the capital risk just so they can share the rewards with anybody. That is no-brainer. But I guess they're less important than the upper-middle class crowd clamoring for their Netflix welfare.

"Whatever infrastructure is in place when common carrier rules are enacted is what you're stuck with for a very, very long time."

I hate to break it to you, but we've basically been stuck with what we've got regardless of net neutrality. The cable companies have been promising to expand/increase bandwidth/fiber for over a decade now, have received innumerable subsidies and tax abatements for that purpose and have done squat. Until the government starts forcing these parasites to build out infrastructure we're stuck with what we've got. It has nothing to do with net neutrality, despite the propaganda you've been consuming from your cable company.

Very well said.

The monopolies that exist (they aren't as prevalent as the Net Neutrality crowd would have us believe), do so almost exclusively at the behest of local municipalities that impede competitors from building new infrastructure by disallowing access to public right of ways, by making easements more difficult to attain, and other red tape measures that the entrenched ISPs have lobbied for. Google just recently issued a press release informing local governments that all they have to do is get out of the way and Google is willing to lay gigabit fiber all over the country. So even in the sole instance where the Net Neutrality crowd actually has a legitimate concern, it is government, not business, that is ultimately impeding competition.

I see, so what we really need is 5 or 10 sets of fiber flowing down our streets, into our buildings and homes. Somehow many Asian countries and Europe don't have that nonsensical redundancy and yet they manage far superior bandwidth at fractional cost. No, try as you might to deny it, the only reason we have the mess we have in the USA is our cable companies are ridiculously greedy. Roughly $47 of my $50 monthly broadband payment is pure profit. Cable co's have been promising for 15 years to build out the fiber networks, taking massive subsidies and special fees to do so, and have routinely and serially broken the promises they've made. The cable co's greed and sloth are what have led to Google offering to take up where they've dropped the ball. Are there some municipal regulations in the way? I'm sure there are. Is that the reason we have slow-ass broadband? No.

Ah, the ubiquitous "Europe's better!" argument. How trite. In my area of the country, where we already do have Google Fiber by the way, I have 7 land based and fixed wireless ISPs bidding for my patronage. Add in satellite and cellular service and that balloons up to almost 15 different ISPs. Interestingly enough, we were also rated as the top state for a business friendly environment just recently by USA Today. Government regulation and restriction is the problem, not the ISPs. Did I fail to mention that I am a network engineer for one of the smaller ISPs in my area, and that we compete just fine with the likes of Comcast, Century Link, and Google Fiber? As I said, "free" and "open," and "regulation" are antithetical, by definition, and the very argument belies the 'objectivity,' not to mention the critical 'thought' that the Net Neutrality crowd commonly displays. Net Neutrality was a 'solution' aching to find a problem, and the patently ignorant Net Neutrality crowd bought the Kool-Aid, hook, line, and sinker.

I'm going to guess none of you read this piece either...

http://www.wired.com/2015/0...

ISP employee arguing that net neutrality regulations aren't necessary to maintain a neutral net... there's a shocker.

Are you referencing my opposition to a title II reclassification that, as a smaller ISP, potentially gives me access to 'last mile' infrastructure of larger carriers, thereby, at least in that manner, benefiting my company by allowing us to provide service over infrastructure that we don't even own? Is that what your ignorant ass is referencing?

I oppose Net Neutrality, and specifically the title II reclassification, because I actually know what the hell I am talking about, instead of ignorantly buying into some impassioned plea to my feels about Net Neutrality addressing instances that literally don't even exist. The least you could do is know what the hell you are talking about before you go spouting off.

Talking to you Net Neutrality tools feels like I'm taking crazy pills.

"instances that literally don't even exist"

Are you denying the fact that content providers (like Netflix) were forced to pay several major ISPs for normalized delivery of their data to customers? I mean, fuck, Comcast overtly throttled them until they paid the extortion!

You apparently haven't read this...

http://www.wired.com/2015/0...

And here is a write up I did on the topic on Facebook...

https://www.facebook.com/We...

It's a shame that you described the Netflix/Comcast situation as just "a trivial commercial spat," rather than an obvious sign of things to come in a world without net neutrality.

That right there tells me everything I need to know about you.

How much did the cable industry spend on lobbying last year? Now, more to the point, how much of that did they pay you directly?

Of course it does, as all you are looking for is confirmation of your bias. You have zero interest in reality, specifically the reality of what it means for the future of the internet to let an entity that can't even build a website correctly have complete say over its operations. Not to mention that both the Wired article and my write up address much more than the Netflix issue, yet you chose to ignore the rest, and focus on an issue that is inconsequential, happened ONE TIME, and was effectively addressed with no government interference at all. Oh, and about that whole Netflix spat...

http://reason.com/blog/2015...

"rather than an obvious sign of things to come in a world without net neutrality" -- paleh0rse

This is simply conjecture and speculation, which is LITERALLY all the Net Neutrality argument is founded on. The internet was by no objective measure broken, until the FCC got a hold of it that is...

"an issue that is inconsequential, happened ONE TIME, and was effectively addressed with no government interference at all."

Addressed? The word you're looking for is 'EXTORTION.'

So it's not Netflix fault that it built a business model that relies on other companies infrastructure? You don't think they should have taken that into consideration when they started out?

There was no extortion that happened, although I understand why you use that word, as it plays into the viscerally emotional narrative that is running through your mind. Net Neutrality is so much more than a Netflix/Comcast spat, that was taken care of as all equitable business transactions are taken care of. But you want to force people to behave in the manner you deem fit, even though the parties involved reached a solution without the need of government interference. Like I said, you have bought emotionally, wholesale, into the obfuscation of the issue that is 'Net Neutrality,' and you, like the majority of humanity, have no ability to look past your bias and see reality. You continue to ignore the copious amounts of evidence I presented in my right up, as well as was presented in the Wired critique I posted, because you have no answers for them, and all you can say is "but, but, EXTORTION!" as if that is any sort of coherent argument.

You and all the rest of the Net Neutrality proponents fucked us, one and all, and by the time you figure out that asking the government to regulate the single greatest exercise in the decentralization of authority in human history, it will already be too late, because as of the vote 2 weeks ago, it already was. Have a nice evening, and keep that narrative going in your head, because if you don't you might start thinking and realize what you did, and then you would really be fucked. Ignorance is bliss, right?

"So it's not Netflix fault that it built a business model that relies on other companies infrastructure? You don't think they should have taken that into consideration when they started out?"

You do realize that you just described every single innovative service on the entire Internet, right?

In a decentralized (and dumb) network, all innovation occurs at the edge. If you had your way, ALL of that innovation at the edge would be effectively neutered by the dumb pipe providers and their desire to charge every innovator on the planet a separate fee.

Screw that. I refuse to accept that possibility and will fight for the existence of a completely neutral net until my last breath.

As I showed in my write up, and as you once again failed to address, Netflix poses a particular issue for ISPs. On my network at peak hours Netflix accounts for more then 50% of all traffic. Websites and video games take up very little traffic, although the latency that Netflix causes causes them to load much slower.

Netflix is a multi-billion dollar corporation. Netflix should take this into account, and alter their business model accordingly. They paid Comcast not for equal consideration, their traffic now gets priority consideration. If the costs are too much, then they have to pass them off as a price increase for their subscribers. This is called the free market, and it works wonderfully if given the chance.

But that is not what you want, you want to have your cake and eat it to. You want the ISPs to build out costly infrastructure that gives you as much bandwidth as you would like, but you don't want your costs to go up. You want to steam HD video as much as you want, but you don't want your costs to go up. You are quite literally ignorant of how these things work, and I tire of pointing out your fallacious 'logic.' I addressed ALL of your contentions in my write up, but you can't be bothered to address them because to you this is purely emotional, and you forsake logic long ago.

Enjoy your evening.

"Enjoy your evening."

No worries. I think a little Netflix, HBO GO, and YouTube is in order... what say you?

After all, I'm already paying Verizon over $250 every month for the privilege of enjoying all of the above. I'll even do so without shedding a single tear about you and yours not being able to extort more money out of the real innovators.

Dumb pipes with smart innovation at the edge FTW.

Here's the thing -- doesn't netflix pay for its bandwidth usage? And don't I pay for my bandwidth usage? And since the answer to that is yes and yes, why is there even a question as to whether we have to pay more for bandwidth usage we're already paying for? That is the crux of why people favor net neutrality: because anything else just sounds like gouging on either/both ends of the pipe. If its not then please explain why not.

So wait, why hasn't your company built its own "last mile" infrastructure? Why do I have cablevision or verizon where I am and that's it? Seriously, if you know why, I'd like to know.

"I have 7 land based and fixed wireless ISPs bidding for my patronage" Fascinating. No one I know has access to more than two, and most have only one: comcast. I hate to break it to you but regulation is the only thing that forces these parasitic firms to do anything other than collect rents. I know you've been propagandized to mythologize the "free market" and its wonders, but the free market, when left to its own devices, leaves us with monopoly, ridiculously high and always rising fees, and lousy service. Comcast anyone? Time Warner? Sure these companies will lie to you and declare if only they were unregulated they'd provide free moon landings to each customer. That's what they say. They lie. All the time.

I have addressed the fact that it is actually government action that leads to the monopolies that exist in the ISP world. Google has addressed this issue with a press release just recently telling local municipalities to get out of the way and Goole will happily build fiber networks all over the country. The Net Neutrality crowd literally relies on fallacious contentions like yours. There is very little practical evidence that what the Net Neutrality crowd contends has ever happened. It is a position based almost entirely on gross speculation of what MAY happen.

That doesn't make sense. Local governments have been offering Google huge subsidies to come to their communities.

http://www.engadget.com/201...

That wasn't a press release. If anything, it's a comment against crony capitalists trying to block access to new competitors.

Verizon and ISPs have stated why they don't want net neutrality--they want to engage in paid prioritization deals that would allow them to contractually drive traffic to favored sites. In other words, they want to use their gatekeeper status to ensure that traffic goes to the highest bidder rather than the site with the best product/content.

You contend that, and yet there is not a single verified instance of that ever happening. So rest all the arguments for Net Neutrality - gross speculation, with an emphasis of worst case scenarios, with very little reputable substantiating fact. Net Neutrality is a specter, playing on the emotions of the weak willed and easily manipulated, in an effort to seize control of the single greatest exercise in the decentralization of power in human history, the internet.

"This Little Thing Called the Internet ... Makes It Much Harder to Govern" -- John Kerry

http://www.cnsnews.com/news...

You've demonstrated an astounding level of stupidity in this comment.

ISPs have stated their internet to manage content based on paid prioritization. If your idea of free and open is to allow 5 companies control the speech and content accessed by millions of Americans, then I guess your point makes logical sense (but then it is grossly, absurdly wrong).

Your 'solution' to the 'problem' of 'allowing' 5 companies control of the "speech and content accessed by millions of Americans" is to turn control of the internet over to a SINGLE bureaucratic entity that has no reason whatsoever to consider those millions of peoples opinions? Let's not mention that these companies own their own infrastructure. Let's not mention that government has a history of repression of thought and oppression of people so great and so blatant that there is literally no other entity in the history of humanity that comes close in those measures. Let's not mention that the federal government, particularly the NSA spent the last 14 years using backdoors to spy on every single American's digital lives, and now doesn't even have to worry about going about it in even a marginally clandestine manner.

It would logically seem, given the reality of the situation, that the onus is on the person desiring the single greatest oppressive entity in history (government), to control the single greatest exercise in decentralization of power in history (the internet), to show that they aren't expressing "an astounding level of stupidity" with such demonstrably ignorant commentary.

Net neutrality doesn't permit any type of gov intrusiveness or monitoring or content filtering--just a legal framework for complaints. We know that the nightmare you describe is what happens in counties without net neutrality.

Unlike you, I understand the practical application of what enforcing Net Neutrality entails. It literally requires the FCC to have direct and unfettered access to the inner workings of every American ISP. Without such access the practical enforcement of Net Neutrality is impossible.

The FCC has enforced net neutrality since 2005 without any of the micromanagement you presume would be necessary. Open Internet rules are enforced through data reporting, complaints, and legal action. Nothing different has been proposed. Lastly, it's important to note that ISPs are permitted to management their networks as they see fit (aka "reasonable network management"). Open Internet rules prevent unreasonable network management, aka paid prioritization, such as driving traffic to Amazon over a local retailer or playing a Domino's commercial when you try to order from your local pizzeria.

You obviously have no idea what a title II FCC classification entails. You are also apparently ignorant of the historical precedent of governments ALWAYS utilizing authority they usurp, even when the initial promise was that they wouldn't do such, as is the case with the promise of 'forbearance' with the new title II reclassification.

Your slippery slope argument is tired. Title II is all about legal authority, and no one has proposed any further use of Title II as it pertains to the Open Internet Order. Inappropriate use of that authority would have liberals and conservatives fighting against FCC overreach. There's just zero evidence such overreach will occur given that broadband providers were previously regulated under Title II.

How much more willful ignorance can you display? The whole point of the FCC vote 2 weeks ago was to reclassify ISPs under title II. Before then only voice service had title II regulation. You could at least educate yourself on the issue before you spout off. It isn't a 'slippery slope' argument that I am applying, it is reality. ISPs were just recently reclassified as title II entities, subjecting them to a whole slew of regulations that they have never before been subject to, including price ceilings, new taxes, and logistical operation regulations. Historically, government has never garnered authority and then not used it - the Patriot Act, anyone? The entire Net Neutrality argument is one of the 'slippery slope' variety, as it is literally based on what MAY happen if something is not done, with little if any substantiation of fact.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills!

Perhaps you should do more research before pretending to be an expert. DSL remained a Title II telecommunications service until 2005.

LOL...Grasp at straws much? No gives a fuck about DSL, and the reason it was classified as such is because it traversed the same lines as traditional telephone service. Not only that, it was rapidly reclassified back to title I, so its title II impact is speculative, at best, and like I said, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT DSL! You are a joke, but that is par for the course for you Net Neutrality types. Have a wonderful evening.

Cable broadband was also regulated under title II until 2002.

"Net neutrality" as implemented by the FCC's sweeping bureaucratic Title II decree hands them a great deal more power than you're acknowledging.

We know what government-managed internet looks like in other countries (China, N. Korea, Iran, Egypt, Russia). You really want that here?