'net' neutrality

[jrm]

JRM said:  "Cablevision, TWC, Comcast... whomever. They have a government contract to be the exclusive cable provider in a defined area. Some entrepreneur cannot come along and build a competing network. Yes, Verizon had "FIOS" in limited areas, but the truth is that it isn't truly competition."

 

This isn't true.  There is no "exclusivity".  Any cable company can get a franchise agreement from any municipality to put their cable in a town that already has a cable provider.  It's called an over build.

 

It's not often done by competitors because they do not know what percentage of subscribers they will get when finished so the cost of the project vs the return on investment is an unknown.  It does exist in many areas though, so competition is allowed.

 

There is also the satellite dish alternative that keeps cable companies on their toes as well.

 

 

Yes, overbuild. Forgot about that because I am still waiting to see it create competition (aside from FIOS). Ironically, any new provider in an area still has to be approved by the government, so the government is already "controlling" the internet regardless of what the FCC is doing.

 

The reality is (as you acknowledge) competitors do not come in. It is too expensive for a startup and the big guys don't want to get into a price war. Whether it is cost or simply an unspoken agreement between cable companies, the consumer does not have a choice, unless you move.

 

Satellite? For TV, yes they provide a viable option. For internet? Not even in the same ballpark.

 

Internet is the topic at hand. Interestingly, the driving force behind the FCC thing, however is "TV." More and more "TV" is being streamed over the internet and the cable companies want to control that stream. We would have seen the same problem brought up years ago with VOIP - it was avoided because mobile phones took over and the phone companies got to keep their effective monopoly.

 

 

Regardless, I don't see a win no matter what happens with the FCC. It's either the government or the cable companies that are in control. Neither is our friend. Each is as bad as the other. I am all for capitalism and "let the market decide." However, the internet distribution system is already so heavily regulated (whether cable, satellite or wireless) that there is no free market at work.

 

 

Edited to add: I don't know if this is part of what the FCC has planned, but one potential plus I saw form the previous reports was to reclassify internet providers as utilities. (I forget the exact classification, but it would put them in the same class as the phone company). The plus to this is that they would be forced to extend their service to rural areas.

 

I am not usually a proponent of the government forcing things, but internet has essentially become a necessary utility. You can't be in business today unless you are online. Kids is rural areas are at a distinct disadvantage without internet access. A person near me is 250ft away from the TWC service pole and was just quoted $189,000 for installation (although they offered to kick in $3000 to share the cost). With no other choices, sometimes the government needs to step in. For what I pay in taxes, they should do something for me every so often.

Edited February 27, 2015 by jrm

[adkbuck]

What net neutrality means?   In short Obama has done administratively what he could not accomplish in fair and open congressional action. As pointed out the secret document has not even been released.  But from what has been revealed during the administrations prior 5 failed attempts to pass "net neutrality" bills in the house and senate and what we have heard from the two republicans who voted against it in the 3-2 decision yesterday we have a good idea:    

• The entire wide - world web is reclassified under Title II of the Communications Act.
• Fixed and mobile broadband world wide web applications are now classified as a telecommunications service, and as such providers will be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act just as land line telephone service was in the past.
• While the full implantation make take years, the Trojan horse of for internet censorship is in place
• Website owners will eventually be required to be licensed by the government.
• Anonymity on the internet will come to an end.
• A fairness doctrine on political speech will be implemented  and decided by unelected bureaucrats
•  Net Neutrality solves a problem that does not exist.  The cost of moving data on the internet has dropped 30% each year since the late 1990's.
• The biggest supporters of the FCC Net Neutrality such as Netflix and Comcast are also the biggest providers, they know the new regulation will discourage smaller lower cost competition.
• The internet will eventually run at the speed of the government
• The same people that gave you the shipwreck of Healthcare.com will now have power over the world wide web.
• Censorship and Chinese style oppression will come in time.
• The government will eventually tax internet commerce (i.e. your purchases).
• More regulation will eventually = slower speed + less innovation + less investment. 
• After the Monica Lewinsky Scandal Hillary Clinton called for the government to have of gate keeper function to review content before it appears on the web.  It can now happen.

"Net Neutrality" is probably Obama's biggest scam yet.  If you loved freedom lost under Obamacare you will love Obama-net!  

Edited February 27, 2015 by adkbuck

[scolopaxmatt]

Thanks for the bold type interjections.  In case I missed the point.

[jrm]

Not looking to start an argument, as I don't necessarily disagree with your arguments. But just to play devi's advocate...

 

What net neutrality means?   In short Obama has done administratively what he could not accomplish in fair and open congressional action. As pointed out the secret document has not even been released.  But from what has been revealed during the administrations prior 5 failed attempts to pass "net neutrality" bills in the house and senate and what we have heard from the two republicans who voted against it in the 3-2 decision yesterday we have a good idea:

The issue is funded by big money on both sides of the fence. I don't see this as a right/left issue at all. It is a matter of which politician was bought by which company and their lobbyist.

 

"

*The entire wide - world web is reclassified under Title II of the Communications Act.

*Fixed and mobile broadband world wide web applications are now classified as a telecommunications service, and as such providers will be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act just as land line telephone service was in the past.

"

So far, this doesn't sound like a very bad thing. The approach has some pros and some cons.

"

*While the full implantation make take years, the Trojan horse of for internet censorship is in place

"

 

I guess you could say that about anything, but it still seems like a stretch. No one is "moving the internet" into a government building where bureaucrats will sit there and review your email before it gets to its destination.

"

*Website owners will eventually be required to be licensed by the government.

"

A real stretch. Even if such an idea came to fruition, it would be impossible to implement. The internet is worldwide. They can't force someone to license a Russian website. All this would do is move website server locations outside the country.

 

"

*Anonymity on the internet will come to an end.

"

There is no such thing as anonymity now. Your IP address is already transmitted to every site you visit. The government wants to know who you are, a simple warrant gets them that info. These new rules don't change that.

 

"

*A fairness doctrine on political speech will be implemented  and decided by unelected bureaucrats

"

How do they do that? Again, the net is worldwide. They cannot control a website/server located in another country.

 

"

* Net Neutrality solves a problem that does not exist.  The cost of moving data on the internet has dropped 30% each year since the late 1990's.

"

Yet my cost of internet service has gone UP by much more than 30% since the 1990s. And I have fewer choices for providers.

 

"

*The biggest supporters of the FCC Net Neutrality such as Netflix are also the biggest providers, they know the new regulation will discourage lower cost ISP's.

"

Exactly. As already mentioned, this is all driven by companies who buy legislators to do their bidding. Neither side is looking out for the consumer. This is about big companies fighting it out to increase their profits and control.

 

"

*The internet will eventually run at the speed of the government

 "

How so? How does prohibiting TWC from over-charging Netflix for an exclusive deal to lock out a Netflix competitor - and then increasing your rates because you have less choice ruin the internet? How is prioritizing Netflix by throttling my speed of downloading a file (when we both pay the same for service) justified? If there were 10 providers and you could choose the "netflix prioritized" and I could choose the "file download prioritized" I would agree. As it is, we are both stuck with the same ONE choice in providers so someone gets screwed while we all pay the rate increase.

 

"

*The same people that gave you the shipwreck of Healthcare.com will now have power over the world wide web.

"

The government screwed up the healthcare system. 1000% agreed - I am pissed on that one. But that is not the same thing as this. The comparison the the train wreck of a website it fun to make, but the government will not be "running" the internet and building everyone's websites.

 

"

*Censorship and Chinese style oppression will come in time.

"

The FCC has been regulating the telephone system for a while. Where is the censorship and Chinese style oppression? I have said some dumb things on the phone in my day, and not once has a swat team busted down my door.

Let's face it - they want to shut you up, they can already do it. No need to hide behind the FCC.

 

"

*The government will eventually tax internet commerce (i.e. your purchases).

"

Easy enough to do right now. VAT/National Sales Tax ideas have been floating around for a while. This doesn't change that at all.

 

"

*More regulation will eventually = slower speed + less innovation + less investment. 

"

How? If no one can be throttled because another company purchased priority, that will lead to more opportunity. More companies can deliver more content without getting ripped or shut out by the provider. If things get slow or crowded, the provider will be forced to innovate and invest in their network. If the cable company can prioritize, whoever isn't paying for "premium delivery" will have slower speed. It shuts out the little guy and stifles innovation.

 

"

*After the Monica Lewinsky Scandal Hillary Clinton called for the government to have of gate keeper function to review content before it appears on the web.  It can now happen.

"

The Clinton's have said and continue to say ridiculous things. They would love to control everyone's life. That doesn't make their wish attainable of even technically possible.

 

"

*"Net Neutrality" is probably Obama's biggest scam yet.  If you loved freedom lost under Obamacare you will love Obama-net!

"

You may be correct, but I don't think so. I don't think there is a true political agenda in this. It is two powerful companies fighting it out and one side bought the "D" while the other bought the "R." Each could have easily sided with the opposite parties.

Edited February 27, 2015 by jrm

[adkbuck]

jrm,

 

You made some really good points and seem to have a good thought process! I don't agree with some of what you said but at least you made an effort to make a decent contribution to the debate and you succeeded.  I know everyone's IP address goes to each website that is addressed but the government will instantly be able to know those IP's and in-effect our identities almost instantly if they wish.  Warrants will not be necessary.  They will know the location and identity of all US users which they will regulate differently than foreign users.   I hope you are right and I am wrong on some of these.   Thanks!  I was called away in the middle of my reply. I apologize.   I am much more skeptical about the governments intentions than you are because of the way this was done.  To me its déjà vu all over again (as Yogi would say)  relative to Obamacare and the SAFE Act.  I don't think American citizens should be treated so badly.  They seem to think we are really dumb.  Again thanks for your good comments! 

Edited February 28, 2015 by adkbuck

[jrm]

jrm, You made some really good points and seem to have a good thought process!  I hope you are right and I am wrong on some of these.   Thanks!

Thanks for the compliment and for taking it in the friendly way it was intended. I also hope I am right, for both our sakes. In case I am wrong, it may be a good time to look at Mexico... set up a "hosting" service across the border for those looking to avoid the over-regulation. I hear Mexican officials are much less expensive than their American counterparts.

[philoshop]

Without knowing what's actually in the regulations, that are for some reason being kept secret, it's really all speculation at this point.

But one thing is certain when it comes to any sort of government regulation: changes happen veeeeery slowly.

 

If these regulations are going to require FCC permission before implementing new technology, whether in the grid system or at the server base, changes will take months or years instead of hours, days, or weeks. My RR connection gets better almost every day right now. That could stop.

If these regulations are going to require equal bandwidth distribution/usage/consumption, such usage will have to be monitored in some way by the government in the form of in-line hardware that will create an obstacle in the pipeline. Like a sewer inspector camping out in your toilet drain.

If these regulations are going to require that someone with a brand new and innovative idea about how to improve speed or accessibility go through red tape hoops before those ideas can be implemented there will never be any innovation. The tinkerer in his garage won't have the money for the process.

 

Barring nefarious intent on the part of the government, which many suspect, there is simply no reason for the government to be involved in this matter. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.