Net Neutrality- Our ISPs are at it again!

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/


I've both checked into this site's authenticity and participated. It's safe. If you're in America, I strongly urge you to use the website's automated system to get in touch with your local senator. It even comes with a little template of what you can say to elicit the desired response (which is to NOT repeal title II's net neutrality rules).

We're all gamers- we all have a vested interest in this.

It would also be AWESOME if Arelith's website would put their banner for this on the site- they have a bit of pre-done javascript that you would add to the header of the arelith site (assuming the team has any interest in this).

[Seven Sons of Sin]

For the record, is Arelith heavily affected by net neutrality? The server is still in the cloud, or is it American-side? Because I've heard the anti-net neutrality movement could pose harm to multiplayer communities, if some of those community members are American.

[Cortex]

It's hosted in Germany iirc?

[Mithreas]

It's hosted in Europe right now I believe, however, US ISPs could still rate traffic towards it.

But as someone who works in the industry, a bit more context. Of the order of 50% of peak hour data traffic on US networks is to and from a single source - Netflix. A further 30%ish is to and from Youtube. If Netflix and Youtube didn't exist, ISPs would need one fifth as much capacity in their networks as they have today.

That's quite mind blowing really - and shows how much expense ISPs incur as a result of over the top services for which they don't receive any revenue. That's the core dynamic in play behind the net neutrality discussion - essentially whether ISPs can recoup some of the transport costs by charging Netflix rather than by charging end users.

There are basically three outcomes here.
1 - No net neutrality. ISPs charge Netflix a fee for their huge bandwidth use. Netflix pass that cost onto their customers. Risk: ISPs can use this to competitively position their own media services by offering them at a lower price point. Benefit: people who use bandwidth pay for it.
2 - Net neutrality. ISPs raise prices on all customers, even those who don't use Netflix, to cover the cost of building and maintaining a larger network. Benefit: all content providers are on an equal footing. Risk: people who don't use Netflix like services essentially end up subsidising those who do.
3 - Net neutrality. ISPs charge consumers for bandwidth use rather than offering 300G bandwidth caps. Benefit: people pay for what they use. Risk: ISPs end up basically in a competition on price per GB, with little means to differentiate their offerings from each other, severely limiting further investment in networks due to low margins.

[Rwby]

Can we have some sources on those Mith? Not that I doubt your ascertions, but I know some people who'd love to know more. 50% of peak data traffic being Netflix alone is insane.

[Mithreas]

Here's one from 2015, when Netflix was 37% and streaming in total was 70%. This wiki article refers to an earlier 2013 study where 50% of all internet use was Netflix plus Google.

I can't find a public reference for current stats (and my numbers above are likely not precise) but they're indicative of the problem.

[Rwby]

Thanks!

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

2 - Net neutrality. ISPs raise prices on all customers, even those who don't use Netflix, to cover the cost of building and maintaining a larger network. Benefit: all content providers are on an equal footing. Risk: people who don't use Netflix like services essentially end up subsidising those who do.

At 70-some-odd dollars/month for 3-6 megabytes/second download and a 1 TB data limit, I prefer option two. This is basically the current model. (Which, I might add, I share the cost of with a roomate, so for 30something dollars a month I get 500 GB at said speeds.)

I will not dispute Mith's numbers, because as far as I know, they're correct.

What I will dispute is that said numbers are actually putting a significant enough dent in the profit of said ISP's for them to justify crying about. Comcast and Time Warner and the like aren't about to go bankrupt because of youtube or netflix- the fallacy here is simple. People have to pay an ISP to use these websites in the first place.

While your ISP certainly isn't getting the same bang per dollar out of netflix and youtube as they are other people, the fact that these services exist has certainly provided your ISP with additional customers over the years- and made them essential.

[Red Sunset]

Thank you Mith. I wanted to post here, but I lacked the numbers to give a fair educated opinion. It's really points 2 and 3 that bother me. But to be fair if we're already invested in -maintaining- a network large enough to handle netflix and youtube and we're all paying equally, we are already sort of subsidising things.

Also I live out in the country side...six miles out of a town of 500 (U.S.). I get 1mbs. There's a few other companies that have higher download speeds, but they have monthly traffic limits that are rather low. I came to Arelith initially because you don't have haks(haks wouldn't affect me now thankfully). That was when I had 3G wireless and a 5G monthly limit (you still see 5G limits, but I see some that go up to 25G now...but its no where near 1TB). Wireless is the only option here..well or satellite but that's similar. I never tried netflix streaming. I cant reliably, and easily, and on most options you'd hit the data limit pretty quick in the month if you used it much. I don't know what kind of plans are available in the urban areas, or if shelling out $100+ dollars a month for a netflix worthy plan is even comparable in cost and service (and don't forget about the low monthly data limit. Movies are big.). However, there is the belief here that things are not the same, and that is driving some to not care about net neutrality.

Furthermore it doesn't appear much money is spent on improving the infrastructure in the countryside. Some are annoyed about that. To be fair it is a huge expense and probably doesn't make much sense for companies to shell out for such a huge investment for a small customer base..well its more customers per square mile of infrastructure ratio. But whatever the change I rather doubt its going to affect me. Actually if the rates go up there's a chance companies might invest in infrastructure here more or at least that's as I understand it what some politicians believe. One side tries to paint it as big business fleecing our money, and maybe it is. It's certainly a valid concern, but things are more complex than just that.

Edit Addition:
Come to think of it it already sort of operates like Mith's #3 here heh.

[Mithreas]

Aelryn - of course -you're- happy with it, as a user of streaming services! The granny on her pension who's subsidising your connection is probably less happy

ISPs are deathly worried about scenario 3. They're worried about it because it moves them into a much lower value tier in the market, making their companies worth less and putting them in a race to the bottom.

But scenario 2 also has this risk - if as a consumer all you're looking at is "how much connection can I get for my money", the ISPs are in a dangerous place. So there's no doubt that part of the purpose of opposing net neutrality is to give the person who owns the connection a competitive advantage over people who do not bear the cost of maintaining their own networks. There's financial reasons behind this - essentially an OTT operator can achieve much higher margins as they have lower overheads, making their company more valuable than an ISP that has a similarly-profitable content division and a lower-margin transport business. So at a *business* level, net neutrality actually provides a massive competitive advantage to the OTT players - it's not just about creating a level playing field.

(There's a lot more to this discussion - for example, we've not even touched on regulation, which is a massive burden to ISPs that OTT content providers can basically ignore. And we've not touched on mobile networks, who prioritise bandwidth for "native" voice calls over data services (including OTT calls like Skype) in a similar way to fixed line ISPs throttling Netflix).

[JediMindTrix]

If only they could be trusted to just stop at youtube and netflix.

[yellowcateyes]

The above three scenarios assume normal market forces will work on ISPs. ISPs, however, are currently approaching monopoly / oligopoly levels of market share, if they aren't there already. Many areas in the U.S. already only have 1-2 choices for high speed internet. (A situation that would've been even worse if Comcast acquired Time Warner as it had planned.)

Giving ISPs more power in this area will simply allow them to 'double dip' in fees - first from their subscribers and second from web companies that deliver content to those subscribers. Comcast already has its own CDN service. It's the kind of concentration that ye olde anti-trust rules were originally set up to demolish.

If we had a properly competitive market then sure, we can take some faith in netflix costs properly passed on to the people that consume netflix. Once a consumer starts seeing their favorite content sputter in speeds, they could pick a competitor that offers better service to their favored content.

But we don't have a competitive market. And until we do, it's a bad idea to give ISPs more leeway to charge content-providers for providing content.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Aelryn - of course -you're- happy with it, as a user of streaming services! The granny on her pension who's subsidising your connection is probably less happy

This scenario assumes granny on her pension can afford broadband internet in the first place. Either the granny pensioner has enough money in her pension to cover 30 dollars a month for broadband, or her pension is light enough that she should probably be contemplating things besides broadband internet first.

My own mother is on a limited income situation- she pays far more than 30 dollars a month to AT&T for DSL despite the availability of cable internet in her area (something we argue over regularly).

My mother never hits her bandwidth cap- neither do I. Neither AT&T nor Comcast are in the habit of calling us and giving us back some of our money for 'saving bandwidth.' Businesses are in the habit of making money, not giving it back- there is zero assurance that ISP's will charge granny pensioner less if net neutrality is removed, because this isn't about charging the common customer less, but rather charging the outlying customers more.

Even if we did take it on good faith that ISPs would lower the bills of those using less bandwidth - the example granny you give is so far of an outlying example that the logic to overlook her can be justified with the same logic that Devs are currently using to justify implementing haks in the face of people who can't afford to update their computers from the 90's -> that being that it's such a small percentage it's unreasonable to foist their troubles on the rest.

ISPs are deathly worried about scenario 3. They're worried about it because it moves them into a much lower value tier in the market, making their companies worth less and putting them in a race to the bottom.

They have no reason to be worried about scenario 3. It isn't the current status of things, and no one is lobbying to make it the status of things. Rather, ISP's are lobbying to make situation 1 the status of things, and using the sensational argument of scenario 3 to justify eliminating situation 2, when in fact situation 3 isn't even a glimmer on the horizon.


Major ISP's will never voluntarily switch back to this system (at least not in America) without legislation that forces it (and they certainly won't be the ones to lobby for it), because, as you pointed out, low margins occur this way. They also aren't losing enough money on netflix or youtube to justify switching to such a low margin- because every user of youtube or netflix, again, is another customer cutting them a monthly check.

But scenario 2 also has this risk - if as a consumer all you're looking at is "how much connection can I get for my money", the ISPs are in a dangerous place.

If by a dangerous place, you mean they are forced to offer competitive pricing with the few competitors they do have across the hundreds of millions of customers they are guaranteed to have, thanks to the very websites they're trying to remove net neutrality in order to punish, I find myself feeling less and less sympathetic.

Edit: We do, however, agree that there's a lot more going on than just the money aspect- for the sake of not being completely contentious!

[Red Sunset]

My mother never hits her bandwidth cap- neither do I. Neither AT&T nor Comcast are in the habit of calling us and giving us back some of our money for 'saving bandwidth.' Businesses are in the habit of making money, not giving it back- there is zero assurance that ISP's will charge granny pensioner less if net neutrality is removed, because this isn't about charging the common customer less, but rather charging the outlying customers more.

Even if we did take it on good faith that ISPs would lower the bills of those using less bandwidth - the example granny you give is so far of an outlying example that the logic to overlook her can be justified with the same logic that Devs are currently using to justify implementing haks in the face of people who can't afford to update their computers from the 90's -> that being that it's such a small percentage it's unreasonable to foist their troubles on the rest.

Its not about lowering the cost of anyone just charging the heavier users more. That's fair. Especially if those extra profits are used to invest in things all of us can benefit from. Maybe the companies aren't losing money on heavy users, but I have a hard time imagining heavy users are -as- profitable. That means heavy users are really getting a lot more for their money. When the best I can get here is a limit of 25g a month and a 2 mbs download for $70, I am certainly willing to entertain a discussion of change.

Also I think your above comment "...such a small percentage its unreasonable to foist their troubles on the rest of us." is a bit callous. I've been part of this community for some years now, and it was not until recently haks would not have been a huge nuisance. My situation isn't limited funds but limited options for internet. Perhaps limited too because the state of the net now ensures it. If Arelith must change so be it. And I know Arelith is not a "democracy but I would like to quote:

"Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep agreeing on what's for dinner."

In order to have a community you can not just ignore the minority opinion because it's only solely against your self interest. This applies to Arelith I believe and the U.S. equally.

I think discussion over a change is good. All change always stirs up arguments. Things usually need to be fixed after too. While I am sure that if things are changed there will be issues in the future I have faith people will work to solve them too. While your concerns are things to watch for I do not think they are reason to keep the status quo or to shut down discussion of change.

[MissEvelyn]

We can take action though.
https://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_NN_trump/

[WanderingPoet]

And related with info on net neutrality (in an unfavourable light) and an FCC link at the bottom to express concerns (for or against) net neutrality https://netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/

[Sab1]

That's the way it always is, the end user/customer will always pay. If ISP charge Netflix more, Netflix can afford it. But like any company they will pass the extra fees onto the customer. ISP's also want to look for new sources of revenue, especially with companies like Netflix, amazon putting such a hurt on the cable companies.

[furryn]

Man.

Isn't the easy solution net neutrality with different plans? Her the cheapest broadband is probably 10 dollars a month, with prices reaching into the sky for those with greater needs.

I honestly don't see the problem. If you have no need of that high-performance connection, don't use broadband. Buy a 4g USB stick instead, and pay for what you use *shrug*

[Black Wendigo]

It matters a great deal. Because of what the ISPS are trying to do, more than what choice you have in them.