![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Net Neutrality Your Way
- Thread starter FrgMstr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- net neutrality
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Anti-competition is blocking/throttling/degrading one service to promote another when you're an ISP. It's what the FTC was made to do.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
No, that's what the FCC was made to do. Blocking and throttling (hell even degrading) are perfectly fine for an information service which is what ISPs will be classified as. All they have to do is state it in their TOS which they can change at their whim as stated in their TOS. The FTC has no authority and no teeth outside of false advertising. Hell, the FTC can't even enforce their own rules related to telemarketing and spoofed numbers. In stark contrast, the FCC under Title II has broad rule making and enforcement authority over telecommunications. All they have to do is treat their own services equally, which isn't a big deal, their own services will pay themselves for the privilege and they'll be on the up and up, never mind that it won't actually cost the overall company any actual money since it is just moving money between accounts which they own (which is the whole reason that the FTC has no teeth and you need FCC rule making authority). It is trivially easy to throttle and block competition while still staying within the letter of the law. DirectTV (an ATT subsidiary) pays ATT Mobile and ATT Broadband (both ATT subsidiaries) for the right to be zero rated, perfectly legal and open to any other company to do and thus no anti-trust....
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1268943/mko_oral_testimony_11-1-17.pdf
"Instead, the report noted, the FTC could assess whether broadband ISPs’ practices are anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive, on a case-by-case basis. The report also recommended that ISPs clearly disclose the material terms of broadband internet access, particularly any traffic-shaping practices. This report remains highly relevant today and, where the evidence has changed, it shows the broadband market is more competitive than it was in 2007, strengthening the report’s conclusions"
"More recently, FTC staff filed a comment to the FCC detailing our expertise in this area and recommending that the FCC reclassify broadband as a Title I, non-common carrier service.3 I agree with that recommendation and filed my own comment to that effect.4 As the 2007 report and subsequent comments state, the FTC’s antitrust and consumer protection tools help ensure that consumers can pursue their preferences in the marketplace, whether for prioritized services or for equal treatment of all data by ISPs. The FTC has addressed a wide range of anticompetitive behavior, including the kinds of behavior that concern net neutrality advocates. For example, the FTC has sued companies for foreclosing rival content in an exclusionary or predatory manner. 5 We have challenged problematic access, 6 discrimination,7 pricing,8 and bundling9 practices. And we have conditioned10 vertical mergers that would have foreclosed competition in a downstream market."
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
Lol, and trump will build a wall that mexico will pay for. It is easy to make a statement, harder to change reality. The simple fact is that the FTC only has false advertisement as a tool which is all to easy to bypass. And since there is no real marketplace for ISPs for the vast majority of consumers, you'll have no other choice than a monopoly ISP in stark contrast to what is stated in the comment.
According to who? That was the bullshit that was happening that promted the push for better NN rules, and the title 2 allowing FCC to regulate. So if it was already an anit-trust violation, why wouldn't they have used existing legal methods to fix?.....
Read more carefully... You are only confirming my point. No need for NN when the internet grew and thrived nicely without it.
Under NN there was censorship by Twitter and Facebook.
We do not need more regulation from anti-business faceless bureaucrats. There are already traditional methods for dealing with big companies. Google: Sherman Aniti-trust act. Break up Comcast, Twitter, Facebook and Apple into smaller companies to promote competition. Let local and state governments establish standards and keep the federal government out of the way except when necessary to promote interstate commerce.
It seems many feel we need the government to protect us from business however history suggests we need protection from government.
tl/dr of your post.....
We don't need dem guv'ment regulations.... We just need the government to break up all the big companies to little ones, and have local/state handle it (but NOT regulations), because they definitely aren't anti-business faceless bureaucrats.....
We need protection from government AND corporations. Guess what, only the government has the ability to protect people from the corporations, since voting with your wallet doesn't mean shit anymore. Since the government doesn't have our best interest in mind anymore, that is the major issue we should be trying to fix. But with the fake/sensational/partisan bullshit coming from 'news' outlets on BOTH sides, our society is more divided (and stupid) than before. So we'll probably crash and burn as a country before any actual changes comes, then we'll rinse/repeat in a hundred years or 2.....
shspvr
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 735
So when Burger King going to do a Data Cap video LoL
Gigus Fire
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,275
Burger caps explained:
Did you order 3 burgers? Welp, the price listed is for one burger, but each additional burger we charge by the square inch, thus each burger is about 3x the cost of the first one. In order to get the same price as the first one, you have to wait until next month.
Ohh, you don't want to wait? Well i got this Wopper Jr which doesn't count to your limit (because we fully own it). If i were you, i'd get this whopper Jr to be honest, it's a better value.
More like this.
Burger King is your sole Internet Burger Provider (TM). You have no choice in the matter, you must use them. Now, they will allow you to buy Burgers from other places, and they will be delivered to you via your Burger Modem into your home at no extra charge. However, if Net Burger Neutrality does really go away, Burger King could start charging you an extra $2 for that third party Burger... or like this video implies, could slow it down and make you wait for it (in Netflix terms though this likely just comes down to throttling and buffering). Unless third party Burger streamers (Burgerflix, amazonBurger, vuduBurger, HuluBurger, etc etc) pay a fee to BurgerCom (a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, aka Burger King) for delivery.
Hey wait, now I'm hungry. Dammit.
I personally choose the third Burger option... rent my Burgers from RedBurgerBox and rip them into my PlexBurger server. But to each their own...Burger.
I kind of want to go vegan after typing all that. I mean, like most Vegans, not really, but I want to.
Burger King is your sole Internet Burger Provider (TM). You have no choice in the matter, you must use them. Now, they will allow you to buy Burgers from other places, and they will be delivered to you via your Burger Modem into your home at no extra charge. However, if Net Burger Neutrality does really go away, Burger King could start charging you an extra $2 for that third party Burger... or like this video implies, could slow it down and make you wait for it (in Netflix terms though this likely just comes down to throttling and buffering). Unless third party Burger streamers (Burgerflix, amazonBurger, vuduBurger, HuluBurger, etc etc) pay a fee to BurgerCom (a subsidiary of Time Warner Cable, aka Burger King) for delivery.
Hey wait, now I'm hungry. Dammit.
I personally choose the third Burger option... rent my Burgers from RedBurgerBox and rip them into my PlexBurger server. But to each their own...Burger.
I kind of want to go vegan after typing all that. I mean, like most Vegans, not really, but I want to.
aaronspink
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,122
And as an end point there always will be. If you don't like the policies of Twitter or Facebook, you can easily use any of the 50+ alternative social media platforms available. Its like saying you don't like the bulletin board outside the sandwich shop because they don't allow you to post pornography.
Sherman Anti-trust act isn't really applicable to twitter, facebook, or apple. They all have plenty of competition in the market place. And Comcast skirts around it by not being a national monopoly.
Actually history suggests we need protection from both. If your history says only government, then you are ignoring massive amounts of actual history.
Freedom? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
So you concede my point that we don't need the government to protect us against corporate censorship because private companies will do as they please with or without NN and consumer choice will force companies to comply with what customers want.
If, as others have accused, a company or corporation has no competition to the detriment of consumers than the Sherman anti-trust act can come into play. Just as AT&T was forced to split apart into multiple companies so too can Comcast. I think neither that nor NN is necassary.
True but we do not need to create an all powerful central government to do so. Empowering State and Local governments, which are more responsive to the immediate concerns of it's citizens, is a far better solution. Better that individual States impose their own version of NN. Some will chose more regulations while others will chose less. Some solutions will prove more effective while others will prove less effective. More and more States will model the more effective solutions.
As a Federal government becomes more and more centralized and more and more powerful the greater the probability that it evolves into a totalitarian state. A de-centralized solution with empowered State and Local governments has been the American solution. Ending Federal NN is a step in this direction.
America in a short period of time, historically speaking, has grown from a handful of settlements into colonies and than into States and than into the United States and is now the most prosperous, powerful and technologically advanced country in the history of the world. The problems we are facing are not entirely new and have been faced and dealt with by past generations of Americans. The history of our country and the history of those solutions provides us with models that have proven to be successful. We need only recognize and follow those models.
An all powerful centralized Federal solution is the antitheses of those models. NN is a step towards the slippery slope of fascism we have thus far avoided. Our local and State governments are better instruments to address out of control corporations.
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
Except your point isn't accurate because the current FCC has made it very clear they have no intentions of regulating the ISPs after the repeal.
"If' there is obvious abuse the FCC and or State and local governments will respond.
Reality
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2003
- Messages
- 1,937
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,061
Well they're not getting my business that easily. I'm not paying $100 just for tv and streaming video, nevermind internet. My 16Mbit plan is just fine, tyvm, and freedompop serves me just as well.