U.S. on the verge of trashing net neutrality. Will this impact the net in Thailand?

[suzannegoh]

They are not worried about blocking or throttling you, they are concerned with the blocking or throttling at the ISP level 2acertainre commonly content that has not "paid" to be in the fast lane  

The ISP's  don't care if you are slowed down watching Netflix for instance, they just want to be able to charge Netflix more for making it available in their fast lane.  If Netflix or any other content provider refuses to pay extra then how you access them, VPN or not, makes no difference 

 

 

There are about a dozen commonly cited violations of NN principles going back to 2005 that are often used to illustrate that NN laws were neccessary. One of them involved a dispute between Netflix and Comcast but most of the rest were things that could be sidestepped by using a VPN.

 

And even the Netflix case, how serious was that? HD movies only need about 5 Mbps. They should be able to get that using a traditional CDN to distribute their streams instead of direct connecting to Comcast, and with the rate that additional bandwidth is coming on worldwide, if CDNs are too bandwidth limited now they probably won't be for long.

 

 

 

[Pib]

Yea, ISP can charge not only customers but could require certain services, such as video streaming services, to pay more to stay in the fast lane.  Now we all know these higher costs will just be passed on to the consumer...you and me.

 

My fear is this will be a slippery slope in terms of new plans, plan-add-ons, higher prices, etc., just like how the airlines started years back charging for carrying-on baggage....charging a lot more for additional baggage....then charging for your meal....adding a fuel charge...etc...etc...etc...nickel and dime you until they are collecting  more dollars.   And the whole time they are doing this they are saying the total cost for your airline travel should be reduced---NOT!!   Kinda like when ATMs first come out and they were suppose to lower consumer banking costs---did that happen?...nope, just more fees/profit for the banksters.

 

And regarding a VPN being the magic wand....I doubt it. 

 

https://www.pcmag.com/news/357982/does-the-end-of-net-neutrality-mean-i-need-a-vpn

 

Quote

 

Can a VPN Protect Me From My ISP?

If your ISP does start to slow down sites that don't give it kickbacks in favor of those who do, a VPN may help. VPNs hide your network traffic so your ISP can't tell what services you're using. (For more details on how they work, see Why You Need a VPN.) As a result, the ISP will need to treat all of your traffic on an equal basis, restoring effective net neutrality.

That said, ISPs could very well start to throttle VPNs in a non-neutral world. But they'd have to throttle all of the traffic on a VPN, not just specific websites or services. Once again, ISPs aren't doing this yet; we're speculating about what they may decide to do in the future.

Our VPN expert, Max Eddy, points out that if major platform and device providers stepped up with their own VPNs, that would be a net neutrality game changer. If Apple, for instance, started tunnelling all of its traffic through a VPN, its power in the marketplace might mean the ISPs would be unwilling to face it down (or extort more money from it).

 

 

[Oxx]

5 hours ago, Pib said:

Yea, ISP can charge not only customers but could require certain services, such as video streaming services, to pay more to stay in the fast lane.  Now we all know these higher costs will just be passed on to the consumer...you and me.

 

Not necessarily so.  I believe it's more likely that the content providers will have to pay the ISPs not to be slowed down.  With free content providers such as YouTube, the higher costs will not be passed on to the consumer, but the number of intrusive advertisements will increase.

[Pib]

Regardless of who has to pay who that means higher costs which will be ultimately passed to the consumer.

[suzannegoh]

It seems like the whole definition and stated purpose of Net Neutrality changed sometime between the debate prior to the FCC taking over and now.  Originally the way that it was sold to the public was that NN meant that all traffic should be treated equally.  That sounds very fair and democratic but it's too simplistic, so that’s not what the FCC did.  Instead they implemented a system to review individual cases to determine if it’s acceptable to prioritize a certain type of traffic or to do some other form of traffic shaping.  In most cases they decided that it was acceptable.  So really it wasn’t about Neutrality at all.  What NN seems to have turned into is flexible government regulation intended to prevent any unfair business practices that might arise in the future,  and the public is being led to believe that society will fall apart if that form of regulation did not exist.

[suzannegoh]

15 hours ago, Oxx said:

 

Not necessarily so.  I believe it's more likely that the content providers will have to pay the ISPs not to be slowed down.  With free content providers such as YouTube, the higher costs will not be passed on to the consumer, but the number of intrusive advertisements will increase.

That’s a possibility but since that pricing model would cause all VPN traffic to slow down ISPs might run into the same problem that the Chinese have run into trying to ban VPNs – businesses who insist that their employees us a VPN when connecting to the company’s network from offsite might not stand for it.

[Pib]

 

The FCC net neutrality deregulates the US internet in many aspects which in-turn also transfers primary oversight to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which greatly weaken oversight of ISPs and similar companies..   The FTC lacks the FCC rule/regulation making authority and can only enforce anti-trust issues.  The FCC has teeth to bite; the FTC can only bark unless it's an anti-trust related...then they can bite.   Take a look at the partial quoted article at the bottom.

 

ISPs and others charging more for certain types of data flow is "not" anti-trust so the ISPs will pretty much be able to get away with whatever they can get away with...whatever the public does not revolt against.  And let's face it, the public will primarily moan-and-groan about a higher price/new fee but usually still pay it versus revolting against it.  

 

Yes, we are going down a slippery slope similar to to what happened in the deregulated airline industry with an array of new fees/additional costs for air travel.  Well, I don't think the airlines have installed pay toilets yet on airlines have they?  But hey, new fees/prices generate more profit for an industry so all is well (unless you are a consumer).

 

Partial Quote

Quote

So what just happened?

Pai, who became FCC chairman after President Trump took office, on Tuesday published a proposal to eliminate the current net neutrality regulations, which prohibit broadband providers from blocking or slowing down traffic and ban them from offering so-called fast lanes to companies willing to pay extra to reach consumers more quickly than competitors.

But the proposal's most significant change is to strip the FCC of its authority to regulate broadband and instead shift that responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission. 

 

Is the FTC equipped to make sure broadband companies don't harm consumers?

Yes and no. The FTC already oversees consumer protection and competition for the whole economy. But this also means the agency is swamped. And because the FTC isn't focused exclusively on the telecommunications sector, it's unlikely the agency can deliver the same kind of scrutiny that the FCC would.

 

More importantly, the FTC also lacks the FCC's rulemaking authority. This means FTC enforcement extends only to companies' voluntary public commitments or violations of antitrust law. Unless broadband and wireless carriers commit in writing to basic net neutrality principles, the FTC can only enforce antitrust issues, which must meet a high legal standard.

 

 

[suzannegoh]

37 minutes ago, Pib said:

 

The FCC net neutrality deregulates the US internet in many aspects which in-turn also transfers primary oversight to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) which greatly weaken oversight of ISPs and similar companies..   The FTC lacks the FCC rule/regulation making authority and can only enforce anti-trust issues.  The FCC has teeth to bite; the FTC can only bark unless it's an anti-trust related...then they can bite.   Take a look at the partial quoted article at the bottom.

 

ISPs and others charging more for certain types of data flow is "not" anti-trust so the ISPs will pretty much be able to get away with whatever they can get away with...whatever the public does not revolt against.  And let's face it, the public will primarily moan-and-groan about a higher price/new fee but usually still pay it versus revolting against it.  

 

Yes, we are going down a slippery slope similar to to what happened in the deregulated airline industry with an array of new fees/additional costs for air travel.  Well, I don't think the airlines have installed pay toilets yet on airlines have they?  But hey, new fees/prices generate more profit for an industry so all is well (unless you are a consumer).

 

Partial Quote

 

Maybe we should step back a bit.  How would you define "Net Neutrality"?  It the definition is "whatever the FCC says is fair" then that's the slippery slope.

[Rhys]

Not to worry they are just reactive until they are forced to deal with it.