Google and Facebook Give Net Neutrality Campaign a Boost (fortune.com) 73
The fight over net neutrality just got more interesting as two tech giants said they will step off the sidelines and join a so-called "day of action" on July 12, which aims to preserve rules that forbid Internet providers from favoring some websites over others. From a report: Until now, Google and Facebook -- which have been staunch supporters of net neutrality in the past -- have stayed out of the debate. But this week, they confirmed they will join other companies in telling consumers to oppose the FCC's plan to tear up the current rules. The participation of Google and Facebook in the day-of-action campaign could be a game-changer because their sites are visited by hundreds of millions of Americans, and a message from them could rally new opposition to the FCC plan. The two tech giants have yet to explain what specific actions -- such as displaying a banner on their homepage -- they will take. Other companies that are participating in the protest are.
Re: (Score:2)
Action, versus rules? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any chance these companies could get together and, you know, come up with a plan to fix the problem?
How about suggesting a law that congress could pass that would implement net neutrality?
It could be a model of common-sense legislation. It could be vetted by legal teams of several big companies, and distil the knowledge and understanding of a highly technical subject from experts in the field.
It could avoid the underlying problems of the current net-neutrality law, the aspects that got it canned in the first place.
EVEN IF you believe there will be partisan opposition, Democrats could keep the legislation available in case they re-win control of government. It could be a plank in the liberal position for the times to come, something the public could get behind and use as an [albeit minor] rallying point for the party.
Or is it more effective to just publicly come out in opposition of things?
Re: (Score:1)
Any chance these companies could get together and, you know, come up with a plan to fix the problem?
They already have one. They worked hard on it for years. It's been in process for almost two decades.
How about suggesting a law that congress could pass that would implement net neutrality?
How about explaining to us exactly why Congress can't pass the current implementation if they want?
Note the phrase, answer for the "cannot" rather than the "will not" option.
It could be a model of common-sense legislation.
I suggest you give up on the idea of "common-sense" as a standard, that's nothing more than a rhetorical statement, and not particularly valuable as a model of anything.
It could be vetted by legal teams of several big companies, and distil the knowledge and understanding of a highly technical subject from experts in the field.
Yes, it already has sufficient experience. Almost a hundred years
Just for clarity... (Score:1)
Google and Facebook support net neutrality because it benefits Google and Facebook. We are just manure on their field, as far as they are concerned.
Well-reasoned and clear arguments against net neutrality have had no effect, and never would have. The decision isn't based on what is Just, but on what is profitable to a specific set of wealthy elites.
Widespread public disapproval has not amounted to, and will never amount to, a hill of beans. Opposition from wealthy elites such as Google and Facebook might
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. Quite the opposite, in fact. Google and Facebook, like Netflix, are big enough that they can throw their considerable weight around (or, failing that, throw money at the problem) to get favorable access to last-mile access providers with minimal effort. No ISP (at least in the U.S.) would be crazy enough to significantly throttle any of them at this point, because their users would march with pitchforks.
If anythi
If you really want to give NN a boost (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. This isn't the site for it though - this is a site where nerds discuss technical topics your are not qualified to intelligently comment on, and you are a spammer. What's wrong with spamming and annoying the shit out of people? Have you heard the word of Christ my friend? Oh, of course you have - I'm responding to a fat religious white trash moron. Here's some more promotion for you virginboy from the now thousands out there. Enjoy looking for your next job, and let's all hope that your self promotion on slashdot is visited when your current boss googles your name, finds you spend your day spamming forums, and looks at the pics that are associated with you. You know what's coming next - right? doxxxxxxing and emails to people you work with. Enjoy the fame APK, it'll never leave you for the rest of your sad fat life.
You're boring me. Go away.
Re: (Score:1)
You're boring us. Go away.
Sounds good, doesn't work (Score:3)
throw your weight behind the 2018 mid terms. Make it clear that they'll be blood at the polls when NN gets struck down.
That is one of those plans that "sounds good, doesn't work".
1) NN is a minor issue that will be lost among much larger issues such as immigration, the economy, and health care.
2) The left, and I'm not saying this as a cheap insult, is in shambles with no obvious path to recovery and lots of potential paths to complete disaster. (Example: legislature is considering investigating Podesta's ties to Russia.)
3) The left has no one showing any sign of leadership today, which will come up in 2018 when we examine t
I guess my point is (Score:2)
But as for nerds moving on, we're in the same boat as most Americans: Worried about our jobs or our shrinking paychecks if we've got jobs. It's hard to focus on anything else. Even those of us that're doing OK need to understand that issues like NN get swamped out by the shear number of folks struggling economically. That's why you don't abandon anyone to the whims of fate. If you leave folks hig
Re: (Score:1)
The Democrat party should have exited autopsy mode already: After all, the principal actor has declared it's not her fault. The problem isn't they got it wrong, but their entire machinery got (so) much wrong. There's no point going to work with broken tools so the Democrats need to change, but what and how? They don't have time to reflect upon themselves, yet failure to do so will guarantee another defeat. One solution is to pick a point in the machination as a critical failure (such as dumping a stron
naked commercial self-interest (Score:2)
Google and Facebook's business models depend on being able to push large amounts of ads and media at people who don't want that commercial content. With net neutrality, it's end users that pay for that delivery. Without net neutrality, ISPs would start charging them extra for the content that makes money for them (their ads) while delivering the content customers actually want w
Net Neutrality is the default (Score:1)
And when should the telcos be able to double charge for the same pipe? Charging the customer for access to the internet and the internet companies for access to the customers?
Really Chairman Pai should fuck off, if there was no plans for Telco's to do this, as he claims, then there is no reason to remove the protection against it.
As it is, they paid a shit load to get all the rules against them removed:
The privacy rule: they already sell anonymized browser history and account details stripped of the basics.
Re: (Score:1)
Without net neutrality, ISPs would start charging them extra for the content that makes money for them (their ads) while delivering the content customers actually want without extra charges.
HAHAHAHAHA you actually believe that? ISPs will charge end users as much as they can get away with. Charge data tariff on ingress and egress - What a business model! When you use a toll road do you pay entry & exit fees?
Of course Google & Facebook are doing it for their own good, but their interests align with end user interests regardless of what the ISPs tell you.
Re: (Score:1)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Re: (Score:2)
With net neutrality, it's end users that pay for that delivery.
I don't understand this statement. End users pay ISPs for their pipes. Google and Facebook pay their ISP for their pipes. End user ISP in the middle wants to charge Google and Facebook even though every one has already paid.
Without net neutrality, ISPs would start charging them extra for the content that makes money for them (their ads) while delivering the content customers actually want without extra charges.
Er what? Please explain this statement. When I go to Netflix, I want to see Netflix. However, if my ISP negotiated a deal with Hulu so that Netflix is much slower, how is that delivering content I wanted? Also my ISP is also my cable company. What's to stop them from making rentals from
Re: (Score:2)
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your I
Re: (Score:2)
People and companies don't pay for "pipes" they pay for traffic volume. Traffic consists of wanted and unwanted content.
Your assertion is a false dichotomy in that only Google and Facebook gives me unwanted content and my ISP does not. My ISP gives me unwanted content all the time. They try to redirect my searches at times. They are also my cable company so every time I use their cable box, I receive ads that I didn't want when scrolling. I rented my cable box. I paid for my internet connection. My ISP delivers ads to me regardless.
To use your simplified model, Google and Facebook pay for wanted and unwanted content going to their ISP. You then pay for wanted and unwanted content going from your ISP to your home. Net neutrality makes that model law.
Um no. My agreement with Facebook and Google is that in exchange for free services, I get ad
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy".
ISPs are not "special interests"? ISPs are a special interest too. If you keep saying that is a negative for Google and Facebook while completing ignoring that ISPs have the same negative, it undermines your arguments.
No, my argument is that "net neutrality" is special interests lobbying and attracts crony capitalists like a rotting carcass attracts flies. Who benefits from net neutrality? Google. Netflix. Facebook. Wealthy nerds.
Ad hominem and false dichotomy fallacy. You are attacking Google and Netflix's point because they are "special interests" (again while ignoring ISPs are the same). Net neutrality benefits them. No one said they didn't. So what? Net neutrality benefits me. I could be a serial murderer or the
Re: (Score:2)
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push thro
Re: (Score:2)
So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way.
Do you admit that ISPs are special interest? Here's your argument: You can't trust Google and Facebook because they are special interests. My retort: You can't trust ISPs because they are special interests too. You've destroyed your own argument.
Actually, legally and politically, the burden of proof is on people who want to create regulations to restrict free markets: you need to provide clear evidence that the benefits of the proposed regulation outweigh the costs. Feel free to provide such evidence.
Burden of proof fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the person who made the claim. You made the claim, you have to prove it. It's not up to me to prove your point.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
Which part of Pointing out that Google and Facebook are special interests doesn't mean that there aren't many others; it's not a "dichotomy". was too hard for you to grasp?
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't make an argument, I pointed out a fact. You turned that into your favorite, a false dichotomy.
You said: "So, you confirm it then: Google, Facebook, and wealthy nerds are special interests with lots of money and the power to corrupt the political process in order to push through reuglations that benefit them. Great we got that out of the way."
So now you're lying about what you wrote? You are claiming that Google and Facebook are special interests who are corrupt. So are ISPs according to your own argument.
I can't tell whether you are a really clever troll or just an incredibly stupid moron, but I guess is it's the latter.
You said: "Who loses with net neutrality? Low income people, low volume users, many startups." I
Re: (Score:2)
There is no net neutrality right now, so that's delusional. What is stopping your ISP from delivering poor service is that you wouldn't be interested in buying poor service from them.
Explain to me, please, how I can vote with my wallet when the only two ISPs in my area are two of the ISPs who lobbied hard against NN?
They are pretending that they are doing it for the benefit of Internet users and small startups, when their actual motivation is to screw over users by having them pay for delivering unwanted ads and to screw over startups by killing a lot of business models and perpetuating an ad-based business model.
Wow, you really have no idea how the internet works. I mean, this is not your usual "I don't really understand the details" and is instead master-level "LA LA LA IF I IGNORE REALITY THEN I CANNOT BE WRONG" delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Your ISPs are already happy to sell you unrestricted lines for $200/month; you can run businesses, servers, bittorrent, and anything else you want on those.
What you want instead is that I, my parents, and everybody else cough up $50/month in order to subsidize your $50/month unrestricted usage.
Be that as it may, you obvious
Re: (Score:2)
Your ISPs are already happy to sell you unrestricted lines for $200/month; you can run businesses, servers, bittorrent, and anything else you want on those.
Bzzzzzt, try again. Once again, you show that you don't know how routing works. I have Verizon Business FIOS at my house. That means I can run servers at my house just fine, but you know how Verizon doesn't provision enough bandwidth to Netflix (and refuses to allow Netflix caches in their datacenters)? Well, that means that Netflix is just as shitty for business as for residential service.
Be that as it may, you obviously have an excellent idea of how it works, which is why you are lobbying for others to be forced to subsidize you.
As I said, I pay for business service because residential service is uniformly terrible, so I'm not sure what you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, you show that you know nothing about either how the Internet works or about economics.
Yours is the rallying cry of a crony capitalist.
It's not just about websites! (Score:2)
No ex ante laws (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we wait for a problem to show itself and THEN fix it? Which probably would include having the Federal Trade Commission apply existing laws against anti-competitive behavior. Letting the FCC, amoeba-like, envelop the entire internet in Title 2 just in anticipation that maybe there might be a problem somewhere down the line is nuts.
Hey, cool it Bub!
Ex-nay on the ruth-tay, OK?
I'm ready to make millions selling them tiger-repelling rocks!
Strat
Like Netflix? (Score:2, Informative)
Did you forget what sparked Net Neutrality? Verizon and ATnT heads had a conference where they described their plan to charge companies to access their customers. "Why should companies get a free ride"....then they faced opposition and calls for a law to stop them, and paid a bunch of shills to promoted their side...remember "it's a series of tubes" Ted?
So the problem presented itself, fought its side, LOST, and now it's bribed its way into swamp town for a second attack.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what happened. The FTC did step up. Verizon got the courts to rule that the FTC didn't have the juristiction to regulate their behavior (from a NN type area), but that the FCC could if it invoked Title II. It was only after that that the FCC stepped up.
Too little, too late (Score:2)
Facebook's enthusiastic promotion of fake news was a major factor in Trump getting elected. Now he's giving them the kick in the teeth they so richly deserve. Zuckerberg and his cronies will have to buck up or else, because Trump's telcom buddies will be able to carve a nice, big slice out of Facebook's revenue in return for bandwidth.
While on one side they argue 'net neutrality on ot (Score:1)
Mobile phone contracts with 'all you can eat' exceptions for Netflix. As one example.
Just form a consortium of websites (Score:2)
Targeted throttling by an ISP works because the customer only sees one site being slow, and incorrectly blames the site, instead of their ISP. But if they see a bunch of sites (including Google and Facebook) are also slow, they will properly blame the ISP as the cause of the problem.
Tit for tat [wikipedia.org] is surprisingly e