Neat Net Neutrality News

[Grey Fox]

You already have no choice, I don't see how letting them also dictate which websites you can visit is giving you MORE choice.

Who is dictating what websites I can visit?
The ISPs? I have not heard of any ISP blocking content.
This sounds like an strawman designed to allow the goverment dictate what websites we can visit.
Now the goverment will have the tools to block content.
You don't believe in climate change? You are blocked mothefukar!

Verizon & Comcast. Of course you have not heard of them doing it. They were trying to change the rules so they could. Still are.

[Siege]

You already have no choice, I don't see how letting them also dictate which websites you can visit is giving you MORE choice.

I have choice.  We're talking about you, here.  What company dictates which websites you can visit, and how do they let you know?

A while ago in Canada, Bell, a major ISP, was throttling the speed for Bittorrent applications.  It was also throttling the speed for ISPs renting their lines.

With a net neutrality ruling, Bell has to provide full service for its customers, all its customers.  If it advertise speeds of X mbit/s, it can't be X/4 for some content or some customers.

So, yes, sometimes, regulations are necessary to ensure free market.  The companies build their land and cellphone network via a protected monopoly for a while, wich they used to establish themselves as dominant players once it was deregulated.  We could discuss the legitimacy of establishing regional monopolies at first, but that's irrelevant to what must be done now to ensure a free market.

I really hate monopolies. They are the second worst enemies of free market after crony capitalism and goverment over-regulation.

So, how can we eliminate regional monopolies controlling the lines?
Is it possible to legislate that the company owning the lines, being internet, cable TV, or even powerlines, cannot be the same providing the service as in a ISP, cable company, or power generation?

Yes, I get it, it is more regulation, but I think a regulation that could free us from the regional monopolies and allow free market competition.

I really want to take the powerlines away from Florida Power Line. Those mothephukers have a monopoly in power generation and distribution in Florida.

[Siege]

You already have no choice, I don't see how letting them also dictate which websites you can visit is giving you MORE choice.

Who is dictating what websites I can visit?
The ISPs? I have not heard of any ISP blocking content.
This sounds like an strawman designed to allow the goverment dictate what websites we can visit.
Now the goverment will have the tools to block content.
You don't believe in climate change? You are blocked mothefukar!

Verizon & Comcast. Of course you have not heard of them doing it. They were trying to change the rules so they could. Still are.

So strawman since they were not actually doing that, and a simple ruling that they can't would have suficed.
Now we got a shitload of secret regulation. Waiting for the hammer to drop.

[Admiral Yi]

Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line.  So not a monopoly.

[grumbler]

You already have no choice, I don't see how letting them also dictate which websites you can visit is giving you MORE choice.

I have choice.  We're talking about you, here.  What company dictates which websites you can visit, and how do they let you know?

A while ago in Canada, Bell, a major ISP, was throttling the speed for Bittorrent applications.  It was also throttling the speed for ISPs renting their lines.

With a net neutrality ruling, Bell has to provide full service for its customers, all its customers.  If it advertise speeds of X mbit/s, it can't be X/4 for some content or some customers.

So, yes, sometimes, regulations are necessary to ensure free market.  The companies build their land and cellphone network via a protected monopoly for a while, wich they used to establish themselves as dominant players once it was deregulated.  We could discuss the legitimacy of establishing regional monopolies at first, but that's irrelevant to what must be done now to ensure a free market.

So Canada had some government-sanctioned monopolies misuse their monopolies, and got whacked for it?  Good.  That's what regulations should be for.

I don't see any need for regulations when there isn't such behavior, though.   There are lots of things that government-sanctioned monopolies could do, but which are not subject to regulations.  Over-regulation introduces unnecessary costs.

[grumbler]

Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line.  So not a monopoly.

Not in Canada.  In Canada, they have a monopoly.

[Barrister]

Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line.  So not a monopoly.

You're right.

Actually it doesn't really make sense to call them a "phone line" and a "cable line" anymore.  I can get a complete bundle of phone/tv/internet from either service provider.  The fact that one originally started as a phone company, and the other started as a cable company, is merely a part of the historical record at this point.

But then what we have is a duopoly.  The competitive spirit between the two of them doesn't seem terribly high from this one customer's perspective.

[Eddie Teach]

I really hate monopolies. They are the second worst enemies of free market after crony capitalism and goverment over-regulation.

1, 2, ... 2?

[viper37]

So Canada had some government-sanctioned monopolies misuse their monopolies, and got whacked for it?  Good.  That's what regulations should be for.

didn't the US had these monopolies too?

I don't see any need for regulations when there isn't such behavior, though.   There are lots of things that government-sanctioned monopolies could do, but which are not subject to regulations.  Over-regulation introduces unnecessary costs.

If you wait until there is such behavior, it might be too late.

[The Minsky Moment]

Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line.  So not a monopoly.

Duopoly.

[grumbler]

didn't the US had these monopolies too?

The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.

If you wait until there is such behavior, it might be too late.

Really?  Give me an example of an irreversible behavior the ISPs could undertake in the absence of these regulations.  Certainly the Bell Canada behavior appears to have easily been reversed, and by reports here the regulations were undertaken after the behavior. 

In fact, if you are correct, "Bell has to provide full service for its customers, all its customers."  That means they don't have any incentive to increase their access speeds, because they can't charge more for faster internet access, since such "full service" has to go to "all its customers."  That's over-regulation, IMO.

[grumbler]

Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line.  So not a monopoly.

Duopoly.

Also satellite, so triopoly.  Oh, and WiFi in some places, so quadropoly.

[Grey Fox]

How do you think Wifi works?

[HVC]

didn't the US had these monopolies too?

The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.

If you wait until there is such behavior, it might be too late.

Really?  Give me an example of an irreversible behavior the ISPs could undertake in the absence of these regulations.  Certainly the Bell Canada behavior appears to have easily been reversed, and by reports here the regulations were undertaken after the behavior. 

In fact, if you are correct, "Bell has to provide full service for its customers, all its customers."  That means they don't have any incentive to increase their access speeds, because they can't charge more for faster internet access, since such "full service" has to go to "all its customers."  That's over-regulation, IMO.

they can and do charge more for faster access. What they can't do is limit the competitions speed to gain an advantage nor can they charge for one speed and ramp it down at their convenience. Something they did in the past, abd without regulation is in their best interest to do so.

[HVC]

How do you think Wifi works?

magic.