The FCC Has Repealed Net Neutrality

chockomonkey said:
Unlike many, I don't see the solution to this problem lying in government regulation. After all, it was the government which had a big part in creating our current problematic circumstances.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah right, woe is Comcast they tried so hard to avoid becoming a monopoly, if only it wasnt for the gov't forcing their hand. Dont you get it? If Comcast was able to monopolize American internet WITH gov't regulation designed to stop it, what in the fuck do you think they're going to do with no regulation whatsoever?
 
VanGoghComplex said:
You do not understand the difference between internet service and internet content.
Click to expand...


I think that's a bit naive.

1)the telecoms are in bed with the nation's law enforcement apparatus.
2)there are people within government on every side of the political spectrum who would love to see certain sites or services behind paywalls in order to restrict common access.
 
thejokker said:
The past is a giant example. What will the internet look like before NN? Maybe how it looked before NN. There was a tremendous amount of growth and innovation before NN. NN means the government gets to decide what is fair and proper. Somehow I like the idea of de-centralized control better than a face-less, unaccountable federal bureaucracy comprised of SJW's.

Actually I never really thought of it much. Like all progressive ideas it sounds ok on the surface but when you stop and think about it suddenly you realize it's an excuse for the very worse people (SJW's) to decide what's best for everyone. Actually you all have convinced me... I am against government imposed price controls on the internet. The only way for the internet to be "free"t the government's slimy hands off the internet.

SJW's want to control what you think and do. Big business only wants your money. As long as there isn't a monopoly businesses will compete with each other for your money. Business will always be more responsive to it's customers than a faceless entrenched bureaucracy with no accountability...
Click to expand...

"SJW's want to control what you think and do."

There sure do. Here is a perfect example,



Banned list includes "evidenced based, "science based, "fetus, "vulnerable", "diversity", etc.
 
Lith1um said:
I think that's a bit naive.

1)the telecoms are in bed with the nation's law enforcement apparatus.
2)there are people within government on every side of the political spectrum who would love to see certain sites or services behind paywalls in order to restrict common access.
Click to expand...

1.) The telecoms are "in bed with" law enforcement to the same degree that I am: we both follow their orders when issued.

2.) Net Neutrality was designed to prevent exactly the thing you are describing.
 
Dead Parrot said:
Not all the GOP senators are in lockstep with the FCC. If the Dems can put together a decent piece of legislation, it would only take a few GOP senators to get it passed in the Senate assuming the Dems could pretty much vote together. One advantage of a nearly even split is it only take a couple of members willing to work with the other side to either block or force something through.

Not real hopeful. The Dems seem about as disorganized as the Repubs. OTOH, elections often encourage action so those running have something to brag about.
Click to expand...

Sadly this is not the case as you have to get the head of the senate/house to bring it to the floor for a vote which even if you got a couple Republicans onboard would not happen.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
Fixed it for you again.
Click to expand...
Your hero's Stalin and Mao killed millions of people in the name of saving people from capitalism. You cannot defend NN without resorting to maxist arguments; that means you will ultimately lose this debate. Presuming the tax cuts have the same results as the JFK and Reagan tax cuts, which they are modeled after, democrats will lose seats in both houses in the 2018 election and Trump will win a second term in 2020. Progressivism will be relegated to an obscure footnote in future history books. Your movement is dead as is NN. So sorry comrade...
 
thejokker said:
Your hero's Stalin and Mao killed millions of people in the name of saving people from capitalism. You cannot defend NN without resorting to maxist arguments; that means you will ultimately lose this debate. Presuming the tax cuts have the same results as the JFK and Reagan tax cuts, which they are modeled after, democrats will lose seats in both houses in the 2018 election and Trump will win a second term in 2020. Progressivism will be relegated to an obscure footnote in future history books. Your movement is dead as is NN. So sorry comrade...
Click to expand...
You can turn off the record player in your head now and start formulating your own words. We're both free-market capitalists here.

The issue which I and others have brought to bear, innumerable times in this thread, is that when it comes to ISPs, we're not dealing with a free market.

Got any other strawmen up your sleeve?

How long has it been since you took a basic microeconomics course?

Do you even know what a monopoly is?
 
Last edited:
Unexploded said:
While I'm glad we still have net neutrality in Canada, it's worth noting that both our previous & current government were only too happy to jump into the TPP.
Which, from what I recall, would have left us equally fucked when it comes to the internet had the US not bailed on the deal.
Click to expand...

The US killing that deal was the best thing to happen to Canadian Internet users. We'd be open to getting rammed by the House of Mouse every time l'il Timmy decided not to wait for whatever they recently excreted to hit BluRay, amongst other things.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
You can turn off the record player in your head now and start formulating your own words. We're both free-market capitalists here.

The issue which I and others have brought to bear, innumerable times in this thread, is that when it comes to ISPs, we're not dealing with a free market.

Got any other strawmen up your sleeve?

How long has it been since you took a basic microeconomics course?

Do you even know what a monopoly is?
Click to expand...
One would think handing control of the internet to corporations in a market privileged position with obvious conflicts of interest is a clear net negative to society, and a clear cut corruption issue, via regulatory capture ( all legal, because that is how we do it here.. other countries its just corruption and we laugh at them.. here we legalize things first , 'cause we are better) but no, once propaganda does a round, idiots stop thinking for themselves, in such a solid cohesive fashion, in truly remarkable.
 
Uvaman2 said:
One would think handing control of the internet to corporations in a market privileged position with obvious conflicts of interest is a clear net negative to society, and a clear cut corruption issue, via regulatory capture ( all legal, because that is how we do it here.. other countries its just corruption and we laugh at them.. here we legalize things first , 'cause we are better) but no, once propaganda does a round, idiots stop thinking for themselves, in such a solid cohesive fashion, in truly remarkable.
Click to expand...
I'm shocked, no sarcasm, to find this level of ideological hardlining on a TECH ENTHUSIAST FORUM. You'd think that this place, of all places, would be populated by people who understand the issue and what's at stake.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
I'm shocked, no sarcasm, to find this level of ideological hardlining on a TECH ENTHUSIAST FORUM. You'd think that this place, of all places, would be populated by people who understand the issue and what's at stake.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately as you can see by the trend of click-bait news with a political slant on the mainpage, this site is losing its identity as a tech site. This is drawing in non-tech arguments and non-tech people making those arguments.

Kyle had something great here, but I think it is getting ruined in today's ultra-polarized climate.
 
Lith1um said:
"SJW's want to control what you think and do."

There sure do. Here is a perfect example,



Banned list includes "evidenced based, "science based, "fetus, "vulnerable", "diversity", etc.
Click to expand...


I don't get it, maybe I am ignorant of something.

A budget proposal, and documents supporting the budgeting process, should be specific and sort of "businesslike", and frankly I don't see where any of these words have any place in such a budget. Unless of course, you have some sort of social agenda going. And personally, I'm thinking the CDC is not a place where we want any social work happening. If the government is going to deal with such things it's in our laws and maybe education, etc, not the CDC and certainly not when it comes to their budget.
 
TheCommander said:
The government is just as bad as corps. They both lookout for each other.
Click to expand...
In the case where the "corps" are a monopoly, I'd argue that they are worse. The government is accountable to the people via the ballot box (at least in theory,) whereas a monopoly is accountable to no one... especially a monopoly in control of what is essentially a public utility.
 
Vader1975 said:
Sadly this is not the case as you have to get the head of the senate/house to bring it to the floor for a vote which even if you got a couple Republicans onboard would not happen.
Click to expand...

Wait, they can't do anything one way or another without a vote so ..... what's your point? And I'm not so sure that the "head" of the house or senate is required to bring something up to vote. And who the fuck is the "head" of the House or Senate anyway?

Do you mean the Speaker of the House or the Vice President of the United States cause those are the guys who preside over sessions of their respective houses. Either house can initiate a bill, once a bill is submitted it goes to debate, if they finish debating the bill without it dying to a filibuster, it goes to a vote. The Speaker and the VP can't hold them up so I don't know what you are talking about.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
You can turn off the record player in your head now and start formulating your own words. We're both free-market capitalists here.

The issue which I and others have brought to bear, innumerable times in this thread, is that when it comes to ISPs, we're not dealing with a free market.

Got any other strawmen up your sleeve?

How long has it been since you took a basic microeconomics course?

Do you even know what a monopoly is?
Click to expand...
If you don't like Comcast there is Direct PC and AT&T. Free market capitalists typically do not lead with an "evil corporation" argument. If you are seriously a free-market capitalist and you believe this is a question of monopolistic abuse than the answer lies in the Sherman Anti-trust law and not an expansion of Federal control through NN.

You do know what the Sherman Anti-trust act is? FYI: presuming superiority is a sign of weakness. Ask Sun Tzu
 
VanGoghComplex said:
The issue which I and others have brought to bear, innumerable times in this thread, is that when it comes to ISPs, we're not dealing with a free market.
...........................................

Do you even know what a monopoly is?
Click to expand...

Yes we are dealing with a free market, and monopolies are not, by their definition, illegal. There are times when a monopoly is fine, not illegal at all, as long as it's shown that the monopoly is beneficial as a business construct.

So just because something is a monopoly does not necessitate that it is evil or bad or must be destroyed.
 
Devilpup said:
Whatevs, it's not like I currently live on my own money anyway. I am an American, therefore I will likely always be indebted to someone, making payments to someone, and living in a corporate-owned residence. I personally hope for a huge fee on social media packages so we can get back to what it really means to be a friend to someone.
Click to expand...

Huge fee on social media, this I can get behind.
 
lcpiper said:
Yes we are dealing with a free market, and monopolies are not, by their definition, illegal. There are times when a monopoly is fine, not illegal at all, as long as it's shown that the monopoly is beneficial as a business construct.

So just because something is a monopoly does not necessitate that it is evil or bad or must be destroyed.
Click to expand...

I can get on board with this logic. However it seems like you are tap dancing a fine line of ideology vs. reality here.

Since we are talking about NN and cable companies/ISPs. Are you also saying that you don't believe that cable companies and ISPs like Comcast are not using monopolistic practices to their advantage?
 
thejokker said:
If you don't like Comcast there is Direct PC and AT&T. Free market capitalists typically do not lead with an "evil corporation" argument. If you are seriously a free-market capitalist and you believe this is a question of monopolistic abuse than the answer lies in the Sherman Anti-trust law and not an expansion of Federal control through NN.

You do know what the Sherman Anti-trust act is? FYI: presuming superiority is a sign of weakness. Ask Sun Tzu
Click to expand...
If I don't like Cox (because I don't get Comcast) I can use AT&T at less than a third of the performance for 90% of the price.

For service providers to be in the same market, they have to offer similar services. A DSL company cannot offer a similar service to a cable company, who in turn cannot offer a similar service to a fiber company.

Please show where I made the "evil corporation" argument, and thanks for at least speaking to me this time instead of spouting more rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
NoOther said:
I am sorry, but are you actually reading everything I wrote or just perusing. Because I specifically mentioned that Netflix did at one point pay. Your assertion that the only ISPs that exist are Title II is false. They aren't by a long shot. There are many ISPs out there that are not considered broadband. The language for Title II is not fine or there wouldn't have been several measures to adjust it. They rushed through Title II as a response because of the court ruling between FCC and Comcast. They worked on separate legislation after that was completely shot down, and they tried to revise Title II to apply to all ISPs and that was shot down.

I have also looked into a lot of the throttling incidents and they are not all about ISPs behaving properly, some were automated throttling from saturation like I said. I worked in the field of traffic monitoring and remediation for a number of years and have seen what happens when bandwidth gets quickly filled. For instance March Madness. March Madness is basically the same as a DDoS attack on company networks because of the amount of ppl that stream. The company's specifically filter based on that content because of the saturation. Even companies that allow their employees to stream, still throttle it to protect the core network.

As for AT&T and Verzion not 'being used as backhaul', that is not true. When Verizon got called for throttling Netflix, it was first triggered by a saturation alert on their exchange between themselves and AT&T, which started a feud between the companies, but then became an issue with Netflix. This prompted AT&T and Verizon each to confront Netflix about their saturation levels and how to improve them. This in turn prompted Netlix to come up with a solution where they would take their CDNs and rent space at the exchanges from the companies based on usage similar to the peering agreements between themselves. Netflix fought this almost all the way but did not want to be throttled so they caved.

So no, I am not providing falsehoods or BS. I have been involved in some of these situations and not from the side of the ISPs or backhauls.
Click to expand...


And none of this should be our problem. ISPs are inTERnet service providers, not inTRAnet providers. I'm paying them to access data outside of their network, not just services they host internally. Their only god damn job as ISPs should be to make sure they have the infrastructure to back up the number of subscribers/bandwidth they have sold. If some large event is coming up, they shouldn't be surprised and have scaled up appropriately, or already have enough extra equipment to handle the spikes without throttling.
 
lcpiper said:
Yes we are dealing with a free market, and monopolies are not, by their definition, illegal. There are times when a monopoly is fine, not illegal at all, as long as it's shown that the monopoly is beneficial as a business construct.

So just because something is a monopoly does not necessitate that it is evil or bad or must be destroyed.
Click to expand...
We are not dealing with a free market in the ISP realm. Show me one place where there are two cable providers, or two DSL providers, or two fiber providers.
 
Biznatch said:
And none of this should be our problem. ISPs are inTERnet service providers, not inTRAnet providers. I'm paying them to access data outside of their network, not just services they host internally. Their only god damn job as ISPs should be to make sure they have the infrastructure to back up the number of subscribers/bandwidth they have sold. If some large event is coming up, they shouldn't be surprised and have scaled up appropriately, or already have enough extra equipment to handle the spikes without throttling.
Click to expand...

You are missing the crux of the problem altogether. Exactly how do you expect this to work with the mish mash of various backhaul providers, broadband carriers, ISPs, and content providers that all must use some of the same equipment to send content, not just for their own subscribers but for those outside their network as well? It isn't just a 1:1 ratio. You may have enough bandwidth for "your" subscribers, but other traffic still passes through "your" infrastructure going to other sources other than "your" subscribers. That is where the problem lies.
 
NoOther said:
You are missing the crux of the problem altogether. Exactly how do you expect this to work with the mish mash of various backhaul providers, broadband carriers, ISPs, and content providers that all must use some of the same equipment to send content, not just for their own subscribers but for those outside their network as well? It isn't just a 1:1 ratio. You may have enough bandwidth for "your" subscribers, but other traffic still passes through "your" infrastructure going to other sources other than "your" subscribers. That is where the problem lies.
Click to expand...


ISPs aren't the only ones that need to keep upgrading their infrastructure, the backbone providers need to do the same..... The amount of data is ONLY going to keep increasing, and the only solution is to keep ahead of the game with infrastructure upgrades.

Again, not our problem, we are not the ISPs, we are the consumers. They are selling the service and need to make good on that, and throttling traffic is not the solution because you know it will be competitors of their own services that get throttled first.
 
Biznatch said:
ISPs aren't the only ones that need to keep upgrading their infrastructure, the backbone providers need to do the same..... The amount of data is ONLY going to keep increasing, and the only solution is to keep ahead of the game with infrastructure upgrades.

Again, not our problem, we are not the ISPs, we are the consumers. They are selling the service and need to make good on that, and throttling traffic is not the solution because you know it will be competitors of their own services that get throttled first.
Click to expand...

You are still not understanding the full problem. The unequal bandwidth going through networks is exactly the reason they setup the peering agreement charters in the first place. The reason being is that you are carrying traffic going "through" your network, as in neither originating nor ending in their network, but completely passing through it. You are basically saying that these companies should have a crystal ball and forecast how much traffic is going to pass through their network from other unknown sources and to other unknown sources. They do that already, but bursts still come through, and often people mistake malicious throttling for simple traffic management to protect the network. This then starts a complex series of invoices. The backbone will charge the ISP more for using more of its bandwidth, they may also charge more to their peering partner that the traffic seems to be originating from. They can then use that money to upgrade their equipment, but traffic ebbs and flows. Investing an enormous amount of money in new infrastructure to support that bandwidth across their entire area is not always wise. Remember just increasing one section of the network doesn't often help, unless you can guarantee the traffic will always follow that path. That isn't optimum because forcing traffic to follow a certain path can lead to saturation issues, which just perpetuates the problem.

In any case, the whole issue is rather complex, it isn't just a simple matter like you seem to think it is. Just on a single company level, dealing with networking and traffic management can be quite complex, let alone dealing with it on a far broader scale.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
We are not dealing with a free market in the ISP realm. Show me one place where there are two cable providers, or two DSL providers, or two fiber providers.
Click to expand...

You are confused, the existence of a monopoly does not negate the existence of a free market. Saying we have a free market is a claim that the status or state of a free market exists, even if there is no competition. That being said, that you believe that cable, DSL, fiber, and the unmentioned wireless ISP do operate in the same regions offering choice and competing with each other negates your argument. Under the proper implementation all of these different mediums meet the classification of broadband access.
 
lcpiper said:
You are confused, the existence of a monopoly does not negate the existence of a free market. Saying we have a free market is a claim that the status or state of a free market exists, even if there is no competition. That being said, that you believe that cable, DSL, fiber, and the unmentioned wireless ISP do operate in the same regions offering choice and competing with each other negates your argument. Under the proper implementation all of these different mediums meet the classification of broadband access.
Click to expand...


Only because the FCC changed the definition of 'broadband' so DSL/3g meet the requirements (10/1 is not broadband in this day and age)... Because apparently ISPs using tax payer money to roll out 'broadband' across the country (like they agreed to in order to get the money) was too expensive, so they decided it would be easier to lobby that shitbag pai to reduce the requirements while they keep our money......
 
Biznatch said:
Only because the FCC changed the definition of 'broadband' so DSL/3g meet the requirements (10/1 is not broadband in this day and age)... Because apparently ISPs using tax payer money to roll out 'broadband' across the country (like they agreed to in order to get the money) was too expensive, so they decided it would be easier to lobby that shitbag pai to reduce the requirements while they keep our money......
Click to expand...

Linky linky dude. You're making claims I know nothing about and frankly are beside the point.

The man asserts that because a monopoly exists, a free market does not exists, and this is false. If this is what you want to weigh in on be my guest.
 
Biznatch said:
Only because the FCC changed the definition of 'broadband' so DSL/3g meet the requirements (10/1 is not broadband in this day and age)... Because apparently ISPs using tax payer money to roll out 'broadband' across the country (like they agreed to in order to get the money) was too expensive, so they decided it would be easier to lobby that shitbag pai to reduce the requirements while they keep our money......
Click to expand...

Actually they redefined things so they would fit within regulations using already existing terminology, because getting new legislation passed with new terminology was not working. Which goes back to my comments about how Title II actually does not apply to all ISPs, since there are many still that do not fall under broadband.

Which, also yet again, illustrates my point of how complex the whole issues becomes and why knee jerk "NN is gone! Oh noes!" is not particularly accurate.
 
lcpiper said:
You are confused, the existence of a monopoly does not negate the existence of a free market. Saying we have a free market is a claim that the status or state of a free market exists, even if there is no competition. That being said, that you believe that cable, DSL, fiber, and the unmentioned wireless ISP do operate in the same regions offering choice and competing with each other negates your argument. Under the proper implementation all of these different mediums meet the classification of broadband access.
Click to expand...
I'm not confused, but I am being confusing. Let me clarify.

You're right, the free market as a concept does still exist in the presence of a monopoly. However, the invisible hand of the market ceases to have any influence. Without competition, companies have no incentive to improve their products or services. They have no incentive to offer competitive prices. They have no fear of losing market share and thus, the consumer protections afforded by the free market have no power.

Yes, you will find multiple ISPs in the same region. I'd argue that they do not, in most cases, serve the same market. DSL is sufficient for granny to check her email, but it would not be sufficient for me - and where I live, it is comparable to cable only in price. If I had a fiber provider, then I would have two choices, but as of now - as dictated by my use case and requirements for broadband - I have one option only.

Saying that all internet providers serve the same market because they offer internet access is like saying that Ed's Used Car Lot (Buy here pay here!) and the local Maserati dealership serve the same market because they both sell vehicles.

We can't break up those monopolies, of course. Infrastructure and municipal contacts together make an insurmountable barrier to entry. It's not a good idea to have the government take it over, because... Well, I'm guessing you and I are of the same opinion regarding what happens when the government takes over an industry: it turns to shit.

This is why I support the NN rules. It's not invasive regulation. It's not price fixing. It's not attempting to federalize a private sector industry. It's just a list of standards and rules that ISPs are expected to follow.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
I'm not confused, but I am being confusing. Let me clarify.

You're right, the free market as a concept does still exist in the presence of a monopoly. However, the invisible hand of the market ceases to have any influence. Without competition, companies have no incentive to improve their products or services. They have no incentive to offer competitive prices. They have no fear of losing market share and thus, the consumer protections afforded by the free market have no power.

Yes, you will find multiple ISPs in the same region. I'd argue that they do not, in most cases, serve the same market. DSL is sufficient for granny to check her email, but it would not be sufficient for me - and where I live, it is comparable to cable only in price. If I had a fiber provider, then I would have two choices, but as of now - as dictated by my use case and requirements for broadband - I have one option only.

Saying that all internet providers serve the same market because they offer internet access is like saying that Ed's Used Car Lot (Buy here pay here!) and the local Maserati dealership serve the same market because they both sell vehicles.

We can't break up those monopolies, of course. Infrastructure and municipal contacts together make an insurmountable barrier to entry. It's not a good idea to have the government take it over, because... Well, I'm guessing you and I are of the same opinion regarding what happens when the government takes over an industry: it turns to shit.

This is why I support the NN rules. It's not invasive regulation. It's not price fixing. It's not attempting to federalize a private sector industry. It's just a list of standards and rules that ISPs are expected to follow.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that you assume that all regions only contain ISPs that serve different markets. Yet again, in my region there are at least 2 that serve the exact same market: Verizon and Comcast. There are many regions in the United States that have some form of two competitors that vie for the same market, mainly around any sizeable metro area.

Also which NN rules are you supporting? There many sets of regulations that still exist on the books. But there has never really been true NN in this country, nor is there likely to be. And the regulations they put in place were meant as stop gaps until they could form better legislation. What we really need is updated legislation with appropriate reclassification of infrastructure and services. Also if you think that Title II preventing throttling, you are incorrect. Title II actually provides for several ways in which an ISP or common carrier may throttle traffic. However, it did provide some measure to regulate it. Then again other rules that are still on the books also provide measures against throttling. The other problem is there are too many cooks in the kitchen. There needs to be some more clear lines of who is regulating what and in which circumstances.
 
NoOther said:
The problem here is that you assume that all regions only contain ISPs that serve different markets. Yet again, in my region there are at least 2 that serve the exact same market: Verizon and Comcast. There are many regions in the United States that have some form of two competitors that vie for the same market, mainly around any sizeable metro area.

Also which NN rules are you supporting? There many sets of regulations that still exist on the books. But there has never really been true NN in this country, nor is there likely to be. And the regulations they put in place were meant as stop gaps until they could form better legislation. What we really need is updated legislation with appropriate reclassification of infrastructure and services. Also if you think that Title II preventing throttling, you are incorrect. Title II actually provides for several ways in which an ISP or common carrier may throttle traffic. However, it did provide some measure to regulate it. Then again other rules that are still on the books also provide measures against throttling. The other problem is there are too many cooks in the kitchen. There needs to be some more clear lines of who is regulating what and in which circumstances.
Click to expand...
I am assuming, and I believe correctly, that you will only find one company offering broadband service for any given technology in any given region (excepting wireless based technologies).

I'm also assuming that dial-up, DSL, cable, fiber, and wireless are all very different technologies capable of very different performance peaks and having very different overhead costs to maintain.

That's fantastic that you have Comcast and Verizon competing with each other in your area. I don't think your situation is common, but you're lucky to be in it.

The rules I support in NN are neatly laid out in the executive summary of the document, but here is my understanding:

1.) ISPs shouldn't be allowed to throttle customers' access to content. (When I say throttle, I'm not talking about compensation for network saturation: I'm talking about someone like Comcast throttling a streaming service specifically because they want to sell their own streaming service.)

2.) ISPs shouldn't offer content providers the ability to pay extra fees to accelerate their own traffic through their network. This disadvantages smaller companies for whom the fees would be economically untenable.

3.) ISPs shouldn't be allowed to block consumer's access to any legal content, for the same reasons as 1.).
 
Last edited:
VanGoghComplex said:
I'm not confused, but I am being confusing. Let me clarify.

You're right, the free market as a concept does still exist in the presence of a monopoly. However, the invisible hand of the market ceases to have any influence. Without competition, companies have no incentive to improve their products or services. They have no incentive to offer competitive prices. They have no fear of losing market share and thus, the consumer protections afforded by the free market have no power.

Yes, you will find multiple ISPs in the same region. I'd argue that they do not, in most cases, serve the same market. DSL is sufficient for granny to check her email, but it would not be sufficient for me - and where I live, it is comparable to cable only in price. If I had a fiber provider, then I would have two choices, but as of now - as dictated by my use case and requirements for broadband - I have one option only.

Saying that all internet providers serve the same market because they offer internet access is like saying that Ed's Used Car Lot (Buy here pay here!) and the local Maserati dealership serve the same market because they both sell vehicles.

We can't break up those monopolies, of course. Infrastructure and municipal contacts together make an insurmountable barrier to entry. It's not a good idea to have the government take it over, because... Well, I'm guessing you and I are of the same opinion regarding what happens when the government takes over an industry: it turns to shit.

This is why I support the NN rules. It's not invasive regulation. It's not price fixing. It's not attempting to federalize a private sector industry. It's just a list of standards and rules that ISPs are expected to follow.
Click to expand...

Then we are getting a little closer, your guess is correct and I see it all the time, the government is terrible at running most anything so I'm not for that at all. I am also not for strong regulation though. I have seen the government enact strong controls just to see people figure out legal ways around them while the spirit of the control is trampled. Take the gun control debates, I'm a gun owner, I shoot, I own my own ARs, etc. But the Federal Government said that if I want to own a machinegun, I have to jump through some hoops to own it, and they want to be able to check up on it whenever they wish, which I would have to agree to if I chose to buy one. Then someone thinks up and invents Bump-Stocks. They aren't nearly as good as the real thing, but in some cases, they are arguably almost as effective. Someone found a way around a very specific and strong regulation and because of the specificity of that regulation's language, the spirit of the law was vulnerable. Had the law been more general in it's wording, it might not be so easy to work around.

Technology will provide the way to beat the monopolies on broadband. When the technology no longer requires a last mile provider, when you can sign up for anyone's service as in the mobile market, and receive comparable service in every regard, that is your answer. And it is coming. The new generation of cellular wireless service will eclipse standard broadband and if it isn't the newest generation, it'll be the one after, or the one after that. That is what will crack open these monopolies. LeGuere from T-Mobile sees it, that's why T-Mobile is jumping into the TV market. T-Mobile is going to lead the revolution and pave the road. Other will follow or be left behind to rot.

That is the amazing thing about the free market and competition , it's always there just waiting for an opportunity. Businesses that try to sit and ignore change, ignore innovation, they fall to dust forgotten.
 
NoOther said:
Actually they redefined things so they would fit within regulations using already existing terminology, because getting new legislation passed with new terminology was not working. Which goes back to my comments about how Title II actually does not apply to all ISPs, since there are many still that do not fall under broadband.

Which, also yet again, illustrates my point of how complex the whole issues becomes and why knee jerk "NN is gone! Oh noes!" is not particularly accurate.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that it's complex, but I do not think we should be removing what little protections we had in place without something better to replace them with. It's like boiling a frog. They'll wait for all the hysteria to die down, then slowly start making changes (none of which will be in the favor of the consumer) and continue until they go too far/fast and cause an uproar.

There are only 2 things I have hope for right now. First, that they get enough GOP support to force a vote in the senate to scrap the FCC decision. GOP will have to either get on board, or face pissed off constituents with 2018 midterms coming. Second is the state level legislation being worked on. Washington has by far the best proposal which would force ISPs inside the state to meet NN requirements, opens up local locks to allow competition etc.
 
lcpiper said:
Then we are getting a little closer, your guess is correct and I see it all the time, the government is terrible at running most anything so I'm not for that at all. I am also not for strong regulation though. I have seen the government enact strong controls just to see people figure out legal ways around them while the spirit of the control is trampled. Take the gun control debates, I'm a gun owner, I shoot, I own my own ARs, etc. But the Federal Government said that if I want to own a machinegun, I have to jump through some hoops to own it, and they want to be able to check up on it whenever they wish, which I would have to agree to if I chose to buy one. Then someone thinks up and invents Bump-Stocks. They aren't nearly as good as the real thing, but in some cases, they are arguably almost as effective. Someone found a way around a very specific and strong regulation and because of the specificity of that regulation's language, the spirit of the law was vulnerable. Had the law been more general in it's wording, it might not be so easy to work around.

Technology will provide the way to beat the monopolies on broadband. When the technology no longer requires a last mile provider, when you can sign up for anyone's service as in the mobile market, and receive comparable service in every regard, that is your answer. And it is coming. The new generation of cellular wireless service will eclipse standard broadband and if it isn't the newest generation, it'll be the one after, or the one after that. That is what will crack open these monopolies. LeGuere from T-Mobile sees it, that's why T-Mobile is jumping into the TV market. T-Mobile is going to lead the revolution and pave the road. Other will follow or be left behind to rot.

That is the amazing thing about the free market and competition , it's always there just waiting for an opportunity. Businesses that try to sit and ignore change, ignore innovation, they fall to dust forgotten.
Click to expand...
I think you and I are largely on the same page, then, but I think you're a little more optimistic about wireless broadband eclipsing physical connections in the near future. I know it will certainly happen someday, and it will be the best thing to happen to the broadband market when it does, but we're not there yet.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
.............................
The rules I support in NN are neatly laid out in the executive summary of the document, but here is my understanding:

1.) ISPs shouldn't be allowed to throttle customers' access to content. (When I say throttle, I'm not talking about compensation for network saturation: I'm talking about someone like Comcast throttling a streaming service specifically because they want to sell their own streaming service.)

2.) ISPs shouldn't offer content providers the ability to pay extra fees to accelerate their own traffic through their network. This disadvantages smaller companies for whom the fees would be economically untenable.

3.) ISPs shouldn't be allowed to block consumer's access to any legal content, for the same reasons as 1.).
Click to expand...

But but but ....... if Comcast throttles Netlfix, don't you think this is unfair? I am making an assumption from your statement that you do. Why would this not be an anti-competitive practice and not rightfully be up to the FTC to regulate? Even if this condition doesn't exist today, would you agree that the FTC is the proper government agency where this should happen. That it would be Netflix that should be complaining to the FTC, and the FTC who should be suing Comcast and compensating both Comcast subscribers and Netflix itself?

I think someone else hit the nail on the head. I think ISPs should be forced to sell off their content business, spin them off Ma-Bell fashion. But that's a hard sell and it flies right in the face of what we see T-Mobile doing right at this moment. See, it's advances in wireless bandwidth that are coming soon along with T-Mobile's acquisition and entry into the TV market that is going to put real pressure on outfits like Comcast. Why pay for cable for the home when my phone provides comparable service anywhere I go and I can connect with my phone and stream to my TV? Hell, T-Mobile is even going to pick up my Netflix sub for two devices.

Everything changes. Yesterdays' monopolies and iron grips on markets fall away when these companies refuse to embrace change at the risk of loosing their monopolistic strangleholds. This situation will change, it must, and just like Bloom says in Jurassic Park, about "Life finds a way", so will competition and their is competition. There is always competition. Someone is always looking for a way to break in, to crack a market, to open a door. It's usually technology that provides the key.
 
VanGoghComplex said:
I think you and I are largely on the same page, then, but I think you're a little more optimistic about wireless broadband eclipsing physical connections in the near future. I know it will certainly happen someday, and it will be the best thing to happen to the broadband market when it does, but we're not there yet.
Click to expand...

But we're getting closer;
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/1...red_national_security_priority_by_white_house

:D

Imagine that, the Trump Administration is going to push 5G nationwide and actually become the guy who breaks up the big ISPs?

Of course he's giving everything to the cellular guys, maybe.
 
lcpiper said:
But we're getting closer;
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2017/1...red_national_security_priority_by_white_house

:D

Imagine that, the Trump Administration is going to push 5G nationwide and actually become the guy who breaks up the big ISPs?

Of course he's giving everything to the cellular guys, maybe.
Click to expand...
If everything is being given to the cellular guys, that's less of a problem than we have today. Last-mile carriers still lose their stranglehold on their markets, and it's possible to have two wireless services in an area with comparable pricing and service. Then, as you're getting at, the free market takes over and the winner is declared by people's checkbooks. (Or debit cards. PayPal accounts, maybe? Heck, we're talking about being resistant to change leading to downfall in this thread, and I just said "checkbook.")
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top