| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
venom
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 99 | TRs | Pics
|
|
venom
Member
|
 Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:13 pm |
|
|
| ejain wrote: | | venom wrote: | | If that provider is so bad, why wouldn't other companies jump in and do it better? |
Because building the infrastructure isn't profitable without generous tax breaks and subsidies, especially outside of major urban areas? |
You've just defined a monopoly. Someone put their cable there first. Why can't others do it? Because it's regulated in favor of the first guy.
Municipal Broadband? Yuck.
You want government to be responsible for creating and maintaining internet infrastructure? Again, what could go wrong here?
Look at the work on the 520 bridge. Already billions in the hole. The Post Office? Jesus.
Here's what would happen with government internet:
-- initially built as adequate
-- in a few years, consumers would demand improvements
-- government would claim no budget for it, need to raise taxes
-- even with additional taxes, inadequate or faulty work done to improve
-- internet infrastructure soon "falling apart"
It's so EASY to paint a picture of FAIL 
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Sore Feet
Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6305 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere |
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Yeah, this way we can spend that extra money on taxation arising from regulating the formerly most dynamic market in history like a phone company based on 80 year old ideas of what serves the regulators goals best. At least we're prevented from the horrors of paying more to get faster data, so folks downloading massive amounts of data are subsidized by those who don't. |
No. Goddamnit, no. This is not how it works. Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with regulating the market. Preservation of Net Neutrality is needed to ENSURE THE MARKET REMAINS INTACT.
This video offers the best explination I've yet seen:
Do you use Netflix? Or Skype? Or Amazon Prime for Video on Demand? Chances are many of us here do, and there is probably a decent chance these services may have partially or even entirely replaced your Cable TV habits. Now, if your internet comes from a company like...say Comcast...chances are they might not like it very much if you stop watching their Cable TV because they may not be able to generate quite as much revenue from their advertising business. They notice that you are now using the internet service which they also provide to watch movies on Netflix or Amazon, where you don't have to deal with ads or the garbage Comcast DVR system. Well, without the rules the FCC has just taken steps to adopt, there's really nothing stopping Comcast from artificially slowing down the data you are requesting from Netflix or Amazon to the point where the videos either take forever to buffer and load, or the quality gets diminished that you might as well just go watch whatever you were going to watch elsewhere. Oh and hey look at that! Comcast just happens to be offering the exact same movie you were just going to watch from Netflix on demand for just two bucks!
Multiply that scenario by the approximately 28 million subscribers that Comcast has, and you're talking about some serious profit. All by artificially limiting the rate at which data is sent from their data centers to your home. It costs them nothing to do this.
That's just one of the more realistic scenarios. We could get a little more conspiracy theory paranoid about this and start delving into some hypotheticals that have much more Orwellian implications. Comcast (because they are the biggest provider in the country, and most obvious target) owns NBC. Lets say, for the sake of argument, that the NBC overlords want to use their media platform to display a particular political candidate in a favorable light (or the opposing candidate in a more negative light), but they notice that their viewers are all going to Fox News for their daily media viewing. Well, maybe they decide that between the hours of 5-8pm, suddenly the connections to foxnews.com will be a little more spotty and data might not load as quickly. Or at all. And now you can't get your fair and balanced information. But hey, nbcnews.com is loading up just fine. Lets get even more nefarious here...instead of throttling access to Fox, now they're just straight up redirecting all content from fox to nbc. You can't even get there anymore, because in the fine print of the contract you agreed to when you signed up for your internet service, it says "we reserve the right to regulate the content we deliver" or something along those lines. Maybe you got a discount of a couple bucks a month for allowing them to do this, who knows. Point is, they are not prevented from doing this because there are no rules in place that state they can't.
Tom Wheeler, the Chairman of the FCC, said very eloquently today..."This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech."
Net Neutrality is needed to ensure that NOBODY, not the government, not your ISP, not the content creators, can interfere with what you can access on the internet. Everything is treated equally. Nobody gets preferential treatment. Nobody gets blocked. Nobody gets censored.
| Quote: | | Now wise overlords can apply their judgement of change and new ideas using the methods and goals of an institution which was continually behind the curve to start with. Congratulations on ossifying innovation. Now change can occur at the speed of Federal Govt! |
You seriously think internet providers would offer up any sort of innovation if these rules didn't come into play? ISPs don't give two craps about innovation. They don't have to. They have effective monopolies, or at best duopolies, in virtually every corner of the country. They're in it for the money - their shareholders demand this. Period. Innovation only comes into play from the ISPs if it is guaranteed to increase their stock price. Innovation takes place on the consumer and small business level, and ensuring that everyone has free and unimpeded access to the internet is what will spur innovation.
You want actual innovation in ISP service? Start advocating VERY LOUDLY for Local Loop Unbundling for internet access. This is what prevents other ISPs from forming and using the lines which already exist to your house to deliver competing internet service, and what prevented our telephone poles from looking like this after Ma Bell was broken up. The big providers don't want this because it is extremely expensive to lay out new cable or fiber, and that expense prevents new players from coming into the market. This is why Google is the only company actually trying to do this in a semi-widespread manner right now - they have the capital (but they don't have unlimited capital, which is why they are selectively targeting small areas of individual cities right now). If we get Last Mile Unbundling, then Comcast or Verizon or CenturyLink will be required to lease out the lines that they have already laid down - at fair market rates mind you - so that competitor services can start to spring up. Right now, there is ZERO incentive for the big ISPs to do this because it keeps their monopolistic behavior, and associated revenue stream intact.
| Quote: | | The worst idea based upon most specious and backwards arguments in recent memory. Its so good they refused to release the 300 pages of regulations before passing them. That should tell you all you need to know right there. |
They haven't actually released the regulations publicly yet, so we do not know what is in it (and we do need to), but most of the reputable sources out there suggest that the actual regulations are only eight pages long, and that the other 250+ pages are their findings, reasoning, and historical support for the conclusions they came to.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejain
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 1498 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
ejain
Member
|
Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:58 pm |
|
|
| venom wrote: | | Why can't others do it? Because it's regulated in favor of the first guy. |
The reason it's regulated in favor of the first guy is that without such incentives, there usually would be no first guy.
| venom wrote: | | -- initially built as adequate
-- in a few years, consumers would demand improvements
-- government would claim no budget for it, need to raise taxes
-- even with additional taxes, inadequate or faulty work done to improve
-- internet infrastructure soon "falling apart" |
Substitute "fees" for "taxes", and chances are that describes your provider's infrastructure just as well...
Municipal broadband projects have a mixed record, but it's funny how a local provider will suddenly have the resources to improve their service whenever such a project is announced :-)
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venom
Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 99 | TRs | Pics
|
|
venom
Member
|
Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:24 pm |
|
|
| ejain wrote: | | Substitute "fees" for "taxes", and chances are that describes your provider's infrastructure just as well...
Municipal broadband projects have a mixed record, but it's funny how a local provider will suddenly have the resources to improve their service whenever such a project is announced :-) |
We're both for more competition. Can we just not interject the government into it?
| Sore Feet wrote: | | Net Neutrality is needed to ensure that NOBODY, not the government, not your ISP, not the content creators, can interfere with what you can access on the internet. Everything is treated equally. Nobody gets preferential treatment. Nobody gets blocked. Nobody gets censored. |
Sounds great.  Can we just make sure the government isn't the one controlling it? Because if they are, they will F it up in all those cases.
It's like a Junior High textbook: "the Government is here to make everything good" 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejain
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 1498 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
ejain
Member
|
Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:01 am |
|
|
| venom wrote: | | We're both for more competition. Can we just not interject the government into it? |
I'm for more competition, even if sometimes that means having the government interject more rules.
Net Neutrality is a set of rules that helps preserve competition (among services). You can argue that there would be no need for these rules if it weren't for government in the first place, and you'd be right, because without government, there'd be no Internet :-)
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
I've been following the recent hubbub regarding net neutrality on several sites, and it's amazing how little many people understand about both net neutrality and the FCC itself. The vast majority of people arguing against net neutrality are just responding with an anti-government knee-jerk reaction.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joker
seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics
Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:48 am |
|
|
Good analysis of why the US has fallen behind many other countries in internet speed and affordability. Hint - it is not because of over-regulation! Also quite relevant to the question of net neutrality regulation.
| Quote: | | “Stop and let that sink in: Three-quarters of American homes have no competitive choice for the essential infrastructure for 21st-century economics and democracy,” Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said in a speech last month.
The situation arose from this conundrum: Left alone, will companies compete, or is regulation necessary?
In many parts of Europe, the government tries to foster competition by requiring that the companies that own the pipes carrying broadband to people’s homes lease space in their pipes to rival companies. (That policy is based on the work of Jean Tirole, who won the Nobel Prize in economics this month in part for his work on regulation and communications networks.)
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission in 2002 reclassified high-speed Internet access as an information service, which is unregulated, rather than as telecommunications, which is regulated. Its hope was that Internet providers would compete with one another to provide the best networks. That didn’t happen. The result has been that they have mostly stayed out of one another’s markets. |
And connecting the dots to net neutrality from there.
| Quote: | | “For the moment, cable has won the high-speed Internet market,” said Susan Crawford, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and a former adviser to the Obama administration.
The new rules will not ensure competition from new entrants, ranging from next-generation wireless technology to ultrahigh-speed networks built by municipalities. Instead, strong regulation is intended to prevent the dominant broadband suppliers from abusing their market power.
Three-quarters of households have the choice of only one broadband provider while only a quarter have at least two to choose from.
Technology, of course, can change quickly and unpredictably. So, analysts say, it is impossible to predict what the competitive landscape might look like in several years, or a decade from now.
“But we are very unlikely to see any kind of broad-scale, national competitor to the incumbents in the near future,” said Kevin Werbach, a former F.C.C. counsel and an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 3370 | TRs | Pics
Location: West Seattle |
|
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
|
Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:59 pm |
|
|
Especially good at minute 7:30 on. Thanks, John Oliver. ~z
As quoted in The Stranger's blog from Bloomberg: During his 13-minute segment, Oliver name-checked Netflix, Google, Usain Bolt, Superman, the game Monopoly, and Mein Kampf, and compared the FCC hiring former cable company lobbyists to "needing a babysitter and hiring a dingo."
"Our government looks set to end net neutrality," Oliver warned, but there was a way to save it: The FCC was taking comments on rules. "Seize your moment, my lovely trolls," Oliver implored at the segment's climax as music swelled. "Turn on caps lock, and fly, my pretties!"
And it worked.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NacMacFeegle
Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2014
Posts: 2653 | TRs | Pics
Location: United States |
| zephyr wrote: | | "Our government looks set to end net neutrality," Oliver warned, but there was a way to save it: The FCC was taking comments on rules. "Seize your moment, my lovely trolls," Oliver implored at the segment's climax as music swelled. "Turn on caps lock, and fly, my pretties!"
And it worked. |
LOL!!! absolutely hilarious!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flatsqwerl
Member
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Posts: 1052 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
Thanks Zephyr...sometimes I wish I had cable TV. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejain
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 1498 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
ejain
Member
|
Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:04 pm |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:49 pm |
|
|
| Sore Feet wrote: | | No. Goddamnit, no. This is not how it works. Net Neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with regulating the market. Preservation of Net Neutrality is needed to ENSURE THE MARKET REMAINS INTACT.
.......
They haven't actually released the regulations publicly yet, so we do not know what is in it (and we do need to), but most of the reputable sources out there suggest that the actual regulations are only eight pages long, and that the other 250+ pages are their findings, reasoning, and historical support for the conclusions they came to. |
This argument is an outright self contradiction. You do *not* have an intact market when the govt is dictating who can and will do what in terms of pricing, deals, and all the rest.
What this is doing is placing the market under the control of political planners for political ends, and creating a kind of stasis, not a market.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malachai Constant
Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16097 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny |
Black is white, white is black 
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ejain
Member
Joined: 27 Apr 2009
Posts: 1498 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
ejain
Member
|
Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:17 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | You do *not* have an intact market when the govt is dictating who can and will do what in terms of pricing, deals, and all the rest. |
That's true, but there are no realistic proposals for fixing the provider market. The purpose of Net Neutrality regulation is to prevent providers (like Comcast) from leveraging their monopolies to interfere with the services market, which is still mostly "intact" and competitive (consider e.g. all the different video streaming services).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Fri Mar 13, 2015 8:04 am |
|
|
| Malachai Constant wrote: | | Black is white, white is black |
I know, right? Arguing that exerting govt control over a market and transferring it into political control results in an 'intact' market.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
