Like so many other political issues, the debate around net neutrality has become muddied with political catch-phrases, buzzwords, and branding – even the phrase “net neutrality” itself reeks of public relations strategies. So you’d be forgiven if you found yourself asking where you stand on net neutrality, or even what it is. Let’s take a closer look at this thing.

What is net neutrality?

Let’s start with this: net neutrality refers to the idea of regulating the internet to ensure equal access.

That may sound simple, and it may sound like something that no reasonable person could be against. But, of course, there are two sides to this issue. We get the internet through internet service providers (ISPs) like Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and the rest of that oh-so-popular gang. These companies own the infrastructure that connects our computers. It costs them money to move our data back and forth, and not all websites and internet users use the internet in the same way. Outlawing ways for the ISPs to get more money out of those power users is more than a question of fairness: ISPs may charge everyone more to make up the difference, and they claim lost profits slow down innovation.

In the end, the central question is one of degree: how much should we regulate the ISPs?

Net neutrality could mean treating the internet like a utility, a policy that would mean heavy regulation to ensure equal access and could even mean capping the prices ISPs are allowed to charge. At the opposite extreme, looser net neutrality rules give ISPs new powers to penalize users and websites that use more data – powers that could extend beyond price hikes and into more extreme measures like throttling (slowing down) sites, banning them, and more.

Sens. Markey, Booker, Franken, and Sanders discuss net neutrality on February 4, 2015 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The case for (and against) net neutrality

The basics of the cases for and against net neutrality are obvious as soon as we understand what net neutrality is. The short version of the debate is this: advocates say net neutrality ensures equal access for all users to all websites, and opponents say it puts an unfair regulatory burden on ISPs.

So why would anyone besides ISPs favor net neutrality? Well, judging by the comments received by the FCC that weren’t faked, they largely don’t. But there are some fair points on both sides, as I covered in a bit more detail in my post on the pros and cons of net neutrality over at my internet home, Cordcutting.com.

The cons of net neutrality aren’t strictly limited to the ISPs. For instance, net neutrality opponents argue that low-bandwidth users are being unfairly penalized by net neutrality. A perfectly neutral net would mean no throttling or extra chargers for power users who torrent tons of files or stream tons of 4K video, which means unfairly slow speeds and high prices for light users who just want to check their email once in a while. (As things stand now, ISPs charge more for faster speeds and, in some regions, cap data use. But if net neutrality regulations put an end to these practices, ISPs could make up the difference by hiking the regular rates. Rates, too, could be regulated, but that would simply open up another front on this complicated debate.)

The pros of net neutrality, on the other hand, are of two basic types. There’s the financial aspect, which benefits power users and bandwidth-hungry sites like Netflix; and then there’s the ideological aspect, which focuses on a free internet as an inherently good thing. In some cases, the two overlap: we’ll see in a moment, for instance, how social media websites could end up on the wrong side of paywalls, hurting users financially while also dealing a blow to free online speech.

One major question about rolling back net neutrality is what, exactly, the ISPs will do with all of their new power. We know they’ll likely go after bandwidth-heavy sites and power users with new charges or throttling – after all, it was only a few years ago that Netflix had to pay off Comcast to end throttling just a few years ago. But there’s so much more that could happen, and that has people scared.

ISPs want the power to discriminate against high-bandwidth sites, but without regulation, ISPs could just as easily milk all popular sites for extra cash – not just the ones that are expensive for them to deliver. Anything is possible: ISPs could work out sweetheart deals with certain companies, exempting some sites, services, or games from data restrictions and extra charges and stifling competition (in fact, this has already happened). They could exempt services they own from their regulations (this has happened, too). They could even adopt a cable model, blocking off certain sites for those willing to pay for “premium” service.

Who is for net neutrality?

The pro-neutrality crowd includes most of the big sites mentioned above. Bandwidth-hungry sites like Netflix don’t want to deal with extra costs or see their user base frustrated by throttled speeds. Popular sites like Facebook have nothing to gain from a deregulated net, and may have a lot to lose. By and large, most web businesses are for net neutrality.

Users are also largely for an open internet. Power users stand to benefit the most, but the idea of an internet uncensored by the ISPs is appealing to most people.

But surely some users oppose net neutrality, right? Well, sure – but fewer than we thought, from the looks of things. Pew Research Center found that a mere 6% of the 21.7 million comments submitted to the FCC on their net neutrality plan were unique. The other 94% were spammed, often by bots: the seven most repeated comments alone accounted for 8 million submissions, or 38% of the total. And guess what? Six of those seven were anti-neutrality posts.

That doesn’t mean that no internet users oppose net neutrality. But it does mean that, by and large, consumers are choosing to side with neutrality and against the ISPs.

Politically speaking, this side of the debate is represented mostly by Democrats, though there is some variation in the degree to which politicians want to see ISPs regulated.

Chairman Ajit Pai of the FCC testifies about the fiscal year 2018 budget request on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, June 20, 2017. (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Who is against net neutrality?

ISPs are, of course, and so are a minority of web-based businesses – such as the ones owned by ISPs, since they would have an inside track in an unregulated marketplace.

Free market purists and small-government advocates are predisposed to be against net neutrality, too, and in Washington the Republican party argues their case. President Donald Trump and FCC chairman Ajit Pai oppose net neutrality, of course.

Cases of discrimination

Net neutrality hits the news for two main reasons: either it’s up for debate by some lawmaking or regulatory body (which is what’s happening now – more on that later), or some company is doing some shady thing that violates net neutrality’s principles. Let’s take a look at some of the more famous cases of the latter.

• Comcast throttled users of BitTorrent, a program used to download torrents (downloading torrents is not illegal, but it eats up bandwidth, and that upset Comcast).
• Comcast forced Netflix to pony up extra cash to halt throttling of its service.
• T-Mobile exempts certain apps from its data limits, effectively encouraging its customer base to use those apps at the expense of competitors.

Overseas net neutrality

We aren’t the only country with internet, of course. Before we move on to discuss the United States’ latest net neutrality showdown, let’s take a look at some net neutrality stories from around the world.

• Just as Comcast did in the U.S., Canadian ISP Bell Canada throttled BitTorrent users up north.
• The European Union took a strong stance in favor of net neutrality in a 2014 vote.
• The debate heated up in the U.K. when the release of BBC’s iPlayer encouraged the whole nation to stream – sending bandwidth use through the roof.
• The U.K. is still under those E.U. regulations – but thanks to Brexit, they may be debating all this again soon.
• In developing countries, net neutrality comes with serious censorship concerns. Some ISPs argue that regulation at home sets a bad example. Regulations in foreign countries may be less about keeping the internet open than they are about closing it up.

Why net neutrality is in the news right now

Net neutrality is not a new issue, but it’s getting a lot of attention right now. There’s a good reason for that: net neutrality rules established under President Barack Obama are on the ropes. But first, let’s cover a bit of background.

Finding the right balance between regulation and internet freedom is the job of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC. The FCC is led by five commissioners, and it always has at least two members of each party on it. The president appoints people to the FCC, so the majority – and the chairperson – are of the President’s party. Democrats tend to be in favor of net neutrality and its attendant regulations, while Republicans tend to be in opposition.

Under President Obama, the FCC was led by Chairman Tom Wheeler. Though he didn’t initially thrill neutrality advocates, Wheeler ended up leading the FCC in a strongly pro-neutrality direction, and his 2015 net neutrality rules were a huge victory for the pro-neutrality folks. The wide-ranging rules set the stage for the FCC to reclassify broadband internet and gain even more regulatory powers – but that never happened, because Donald Trump won the 2016 election and become the 45th President of the United States.

Supporter of net neutrality protests outside a Federal Building in Los Angeles, California on November 28, 2017. (Ronen Tivony/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Naturally, the FCC looks a little different now. Wheeler is out, and Ajit Pai, who held on of those mandated minority seats under Obama, has ascended to the chairmanship under Trump. When that happened, reclassification plans were promptly scrapped, and the stage was set for Pai to undo the 2015 net neutrality rules.

And that brings us to today. The Pai-led FCC has announced their plan, and it’s the expected total rollback of the 2015 net neutrality rules. The vote is coming on December 14th. It will be hard to stop – the FCC is in the executive branch and can weather anything short of a Presidential election pretty well – but it’s not too late to make your voice heard (view the proposal here and click “+ Express” on the left to comment). If you’re in favor of net neutrality, your comment could help fight back against a flood of fake anti-neutrality submissions. This debate won’t end with December’s vote, and you can expect to hear about net neutrality in connection with legislation, regulations, and elections for years to come.

Stephen Lovely writes news articles, how-to posts, streaming guides, and more for Cordcutting.com. He lives in New York State.

The post Your Guide to Net Neutrality (2018 Edition) appeared first on MediaShift.

Streaming and devices

From the start, cord cutting was about saving money. That’s the goal, here: ditch overpriced cable or satellite TV, and keep the cash. But we’re not all ascetics, of course, so cord cutting only really took off when it became easy to stay entertained without cable.

Cord cutting owes its existence in a large part to the rise of streaming services like Netflix. Cable subscriptions peaked around the year 2000, which is the same year that Netflix was founded. The roughest years for pay TV have come in the years since Netflix’s 2007 launch of its streaming service (as you might recall, they were about DVDs in the mail before that). Hulu debuted that same year, and the roster of on-demand streaming services has exploded since then to include big players like Amazon Prime and HBO as well as niche services, free services, and user-curated services. As it stands, here are the big on-demand services you ought to know:

• Netflix is the original and still the dominant service in the marketplace. It has stepped up its original content game due to competition for streaming rights and the tactics of its major competitors, including…
• Available without a cable subscription through the OTT service HBO Now, HBO is very much part of the streaming video-on-demand wars.
• Amazon Prime gives subscribers access to streaming TV shows and movies, including Amazon originals and even some live broadcasts.
• Hulu has some limited ads (though you can pay more to ditch them), but it also has a lot of network shows available on demand relatively soon after they air.
• Crackle and Tubi TV. These are ad-supported video-on-demand services (“AVOD” in industry lingo), meaning you’ll deal with a lot of ads but can watch the content for free.

One trick with cord cutting, though, is that most of these services are unrelated. You can’t watch Hulu content on Netflix or Netflix content on Hulu, and while there is some overlap (you can add HBO to Amazon Prime, for instance, or through the skinny bundles that we’ll discuss shortly), it can be easy for cord cutting solutions to get messy.

Hence the burgeoning market for streaming devices, which includes everything from Google’s Chromecast (a $35 dongle that allows 1080p streams from other devices to be played on your TV) to Apple’s Apple TV 4K (a 4K-capable streaming box with its apps, interfaces, and content discovery features — as well as a $179 price tag).

Roku was the first on this scene back in 2008 (just a year after Netflix created the need for such a device) and still makes some of the best options, but it’s a crowded field these days. There are lots of streaming devices out there, which is good, because cord cutting’s many streaming apps form a better cable substitute when they’re organized and accessible through one device. A streaming device is a must-have accessory for a cord cutter, and it makes it easy to watch streaming video on demand – or live, as we’ll see shortly. Here are the big-time streaming devices you need to know about:

• Longtime streaming box manufacturers Roku offer a lineup that runs from the Roku Ultra ($99.99) to the tiny and cheap Roku Express ($29.99). The sweet spot in the lineup is either the Ultra or the Roku Streaming Stick+ ($69.99), which are both 4K-capable. Roku’s platform is, in this blogger’s view, the best in the business.
• Fire TV. Amazon’s streaming box is $69.99, a great price for a 4K-capable device. Its platform tends to surface Amazon properties, making it most popular with Amazon power users.
• Apple TV 4K.The latest version of Apple’s streaming box is powerful but at $179 (32GB model) and $199 (64GB model) quite pricey. The user interface, naturally, is gorgeous.
• The Chromecast ($35) and 4K-capable Chromecast Ultra ($69) don’t have on-screen user interfaces. Instead, they allow you to choose content on another device (like a mobile device or laptop) and then sling the media up onto your TV from there. That makes them super simple but arguably less ideal for families who want the content discovery process up on a screen everyone can see.
• Nvidia Shield TV. This pricey ($179.99, or $199.99 with the gaming controller) streaming device is aimed at gamers. It can stream games from PCs and from the web, offers a gaming controller, and can run Android games. It’s also, of course, an Android TV and a great 4K streaming box.
• Smart TVs. You don’t need a streaming box if you have a smart TV, though some of the manufacturers of these devices could learn a thing or two about user-friendliness from the streaming box folks. There are too many brands to list here, but it’s worth noting that fans of Roku’s platform will find it on smart TVs made in collaboration with TCL, Insignia, RCA, and other manufacturers.

Cord cutting and live TV

Cord cutting’s history is tied up in Netflix and other SVOD (that’s “streaming video on demand”) services, but if we’ve truly reached the cord-cutting tipping point, it’s live TV that has made the difference. The past few years have seen allegedly “DVR-proof” live events like sports experiences an advertising bubble even as cable and satellite companies reeled from cord cutting and DVR-related advertising losses. But cord cutters are watching live TV too, now, and that’s encouraging more and more of us to walk away from cable and satellite.

Modern cord cutters use a combination of some very familiar and very new tech to watch live TV. Let’s start with the old-school solution: over-the-air TV. Thanks to a vast network of local affiliate stations, the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) broadcast over the air in just about every region. Your local action news team has its own transmitter, which means that you can use an antenna to watch local news for free (and in high definition, as a matter of fact). while antennas are an “old” technology, there’s nothing old about the latest models and modern over-the-air transmission protocols. There’s nothing to stop you from tuning in at other hours, too, for major-network shows as well as those NFL games, World Series broadcasts, and other live events that were supposed to save cable.

(KPG_Payless/Shutterstock)

For network TV from the many channels that do not broadcast over the air, you’ll need to turn to a pay TV service — but it doesn’t have to be cable or satellite. “Skinny bundles” are the new normal on the live TV front, and they bring live TV to the streaming world while cutting down the size (and cost) of the channel packages they offer. The field is crowded with skinny bundle options these days, including some from major legacy pay TV companies, who have seen the writing on the wall. Here are the ones to know:

• DirecTV Now. AT&T’s skinny bundle offers tiered channel bundles, from the small and cheap to the big and expensive.
• Hulu with Live TV. Hulu, known for its on-demand service, also has this single-package skinny bundle on offer.
• PlayStation Vue. Sony’s service offers tiered options and, despite the name, is available on many devices other than the PlayStation 4.
• Sling TV. Dish’s skinny bundle offers a more customizable brand of bundle by allowing subscribers to choose from a wide range of small add-on packages once they’ve subscribed to one of the base packages.
• YouTube TV. Google’s skinny bundle is still in the process of being rolled out, so it’s limited to certain regions and has less robust platform support than the competition.

Can cord cutting actually save you money?

At this point, it’s clear enough that you can get rid of cable and still get as much live TV as ever. But we’re in danger of losing sight of the original goal, which was to save money. A not-so-skinny skinny bundle package like DirecTV Now’s “Gotta Have It” (120+ channels) or PlayStation Vue’s “Ultra” (90+ channels) will cost you around $70 a month, which will make your bills almost as cable-like as your viewing experience. And cable companies, who have certainly noticed the trend that’s killing their business, tend to also be internet service providers, which means they can rig up unfair pricing systems that make internet-only services disproportionately expensive. In the end, is it really worth it to cut the cord?

Sure, maybe. The thing is, though, that the math is a little different for everyone. You’ll need to know how many channels you really want and need, which on-demand services you’ll use (and which of them you’ll keep regardless of whether or not you cut the cord), and what kind of over-the-air reception you get in your area. You’ll need to know how much your cable bill is right now and how much your internet-only bill would be, as well as what sort of data caps you’ll be dealing with. And then you’ll need to do some math (mercifully, there are plenty of online cord-cutting budgeting tools to help you—including one over in my little corner of the internet, Cordcutting.com).

Yeah, it’s a bit of work, but being frugal tends to mean paying a bit more attention in order to pay a bit less on your bills. In the end, it’s clear that cutting the cord can save you money. How much of that budget breathing room you want to put back into cord cutting services and devices is up to you. So if you’re ready, give it a shot: jot down the price of a Roku or a Fire TV, add in a skinny bundle, weigh the one-time cost of a decent antenna, and put it all together with your ISP’s price for internet without cable. There’s a good chance that, like so many others, you’ll see that you can save quite a bit while giving up very little. Hey, no wonder it’s a trend.

Stephen Lovely is a lifelong writer and a longtime cord cutter. He writes news articles, how-to posts, streaming guides, and more for Cordcutting.com. He lives in New York State.

The post Your Guide to Cutting the Cord to Pay TV (2017 Edition) appeared first on MediaShift.