Excellent news :)
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/
QuoteFCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality
By Tom Wheeler
02.04.15 |
11:00 am
After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.
Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public's great benefit.
The internet wouldn't have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn't mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.
Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.
I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case's company. "We used to worry about you a lot," Case told me years later.
But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.
While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.
The phone network's openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America's broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.
Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of "commercial reasonableness" under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.
That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.
Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission.
All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.
Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.
The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I've heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.
Me and the interwebs signed a non-aggression pact. :)
Internets run on our ball bearings. :)
It's as if millions of shareholders suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Well done, FCC.
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
OK best The Power: Manowar or SNAP?
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:11:55 PM
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
Yes.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
It's kinda the reverse really, and not so simple. Net Neutrality is the government keeping the Internet infrastructure free and open. Killing NNputs internet access under complete control of the network owners (e.g. the cable companies). The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as Netflix.
So while NN is not really "free market" as you probably see it, I would argue that it is the most "free". It's basically choosing between government regulation, and regulation by your cable company (which for most people, you cannot really choose a competitor).
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
It's kinda the reverse really, and not so simple. Net Neutrality is the government keeping the Internet infrastructure free and open. Killing NNputs internet access under complete control of the network owners (e.g. the cable companies). The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as Netflix.
So while NN is not really "free market" as you probably see it, I would argue that it is the most "free". It's basically choosing between government regulation, and regulation by your cable company (which for most people, you cannot really choose a competitor).
You argument makes sense.
Thanks for taking the time to break it down for me.
I am in favor of the freest market possible, and monopolism is the greatest thread to free market after overregulation.
So I totally favor the goverment enforcing anti-monopoly regulations.
Monopoly leads to price fixing and competitivity extermination.
Look at what Florida Power Line has done down in Florida.
So, Obama supported Net Neutrality?
I guess I can finally say that I support an Obama policy.
So I aint gonna call him Zerobama anymore.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
The fear in killing NN is that the cable companies will then charge you up the ass for everything, and will block out/clamp down on bandwidth to companies that stream competing media, such as Netflix.
Judging from bandwidth usage statistics, the cable companies already do that. When negotiating, for instance. So this is big business vs us, the users.
Consider the Internet as a road. A public service. A common good. Should someone get to close a lane for other traffic to get their traffic through?
Net neutrality as a principle is about every single packet of data being dispatched having the same importance, regardless of who sends it or who receives it.
I like that principle.
Yep. Net Neutrality FTW.
The devil's advocate argument, is that unlike in the analogy on roads, it is the cable companies who've paid for/built most of the infrastructure. But on the flip side, they're already charging you to access it, but they also want to control how you use that access.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 04:05:12 PM
The devil's advocate argument, is that unlike in the analogy on roads, it is the cable companies who've paid for/built most of the infrastructure. But on the flip side, they're already charging you to access it, but they also want to control how you use that access.
Can you get coax Internet without a TV subscription as well in the US now?
Norwegian authorities have been on the cable companies' case for a while now, so I think from March/April most cable companies will offer coax Internet subscriptions as stand-alone products.
The thing is, cable companies to some extent represent a technology in serious recession in cable TV, while also representing the most forward consumer technology in fiberoptic lines or coax. I understand their position, but from a consumer's perspective, it's not tenable.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
it comes form the government, therefore it is a communist attempt to increase their power. Even if it's really reenforcing free market.
Quote from: Norgy on February 09, 2015, 04:15:39 PM
Can you get coax Internet without a TV subscription as well in the US now?
Unsure about the US, definately yes in Canada.
Yes you can - I have satellite TV and cable internet.
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Yes you can - I have satellite TV and cable internet.
Why do you satellite when you have internet?
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Yes you can - I have satellite TV and cable internet.
Why do you satellite when you have internet?
He's in orbit around katmai.
I can only imagine it's a homage to Lou Reed. A satellite of love, so to speak.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2015, 04:27:18 PM
Yes you can - I have satellite TV and cable internet.
Why do you satellite when you have internet?
Like every satellite subscribers in the US, he likes football.
I don't understand the question.
I have satellite because I like to watch TV?
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2015, 08:07:02 PM
I don't understand the question.
I have satellite because I like to watch TV?
Yeah, it was kind of like asking, "Why do you have a microwave if you have a blender?".
Why would anybody think that this guy has the ability to make a decision? Isn't Congress just going to bigfoot an industry-friendly rule over the top of anything the FCC tries to do? If there's one thing that Republicans and Democrats can get together on, it's that bribe money free speech from Verizon is the best thing since sliced bread.
There's "industry" on both sides of this issue.
Quote from: Berkut on February 09, 2015, 08:07:02 PM
I don't understand the question.
I have satellite because I like to watch TV?
I watch TV through the internet. Netflix and Hulu got everything I need.
Well, except movies, which there many others ways to get.
By the way, the reason there are so few movies in the streaming services is because the hollywood industry insists in charging DVD renting rates.
Hollywood has been very slow to adapt to the streaming revolution.
Their loss.
I've considered the idea of abandoning traditional TV content provision in favor of just internet.
Problem is I have a wife and kids who have no tolerance for fucking around with 16 different ways to get at what they want to watch.
Quote from: Berkut on February 10, 2015, 11:06:15 AM
I've considered the idea of abandoning traditional TV content provision in favor of just internet.
Problem is I have a wife and kids who have no tolerance for fucking around with 16 different ways to get at what they want to watch.
Add "no willingness to learn" to that and you have my family. You'd think it requires an MIT grad to switch from the Tivo to the Xbox or Playstation, the way they act.
"The TV's not working!!!!" :ultra: :frusty:
I would cut the cable but I like sports so I am shit out of luck.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2015, 11:37:58 AM
I would cut the cable but I like sports so I am shit out of luck.
I'm pretty sure ESPN is available online.
But I don't know. I don't watch sports.
I don't live in the USA
and while sports is available online, cost associated with it is larger than having cable sub.
How's meth neutrality doing, by the way?
Quote from: Norgy on February 10, 2015, 03:41:28 PM
How's meth neutrality doing, by the way?
Lost in Ohio to Heroin neutrality.
There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad." :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2015, 11:37:58 AM
I would cut the cable but I like sports so I am shit out of luck.
Yeah, for me the biggest reason for keeping our TV subscription is the sports. The American online sports content isn't available in Canada. If it was I would probably cut the TV subscription entirely.
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 04:05:12 PM
The devil's advocate argument, is that unlike in the analogy on roads, it is the cable companies who've paid for/built most of the infrastructure. But on the flip side, they're already charging you to access it, but they also want to control how you use that access.
The real counter-argument for the FCC's decision to increase bureaucracy is that the problems it solved didn't exist. I've heard a lot of pretty persuasive argument from academics who study this issue that the FCC is, as is common in bureaucracies, cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer.
Quote from: Syt on February 10, 2015, 06:12:11 PM
There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad." :lol:
Do they show you the PSAs with people's skin falling off?
We're not there yet.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2015, 11:37:58 AM
I would cut the cable but I like sports so I am shit out of luck.
That's where I'm at.
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:11:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 09, 2015, 03:04:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 09, 2015, 03:03:20 PM
TL;DR
What are the arguments in favor and against?
Freedom vs. Commies vs. Robber Barons
Ok.
So Net Neutrality is the free market solution or the monopolist/communist attempt to increase their power?
Both sides say their stand is free market at work.
The anti- camp says that the market will drop the revenue hammer when interconnection fees become unreasonable.
The pro-net neutrality camp says that the revenue hammer couldn't be dropped on certain companies because they connect content providers
and consumers to the Internet.
Net neutrality is a good thing, IMO- they're basically telling Comcast and Verizon, "if you're going to operate like monopolies, we're going to regulate you like monopolies." To a lesser extent, they're throwing down the gauntlet on wireless companies, except it'll be trickier to regulate those- by statute, wireless companies are exempted from many of the things that give the FCC teeth to enforce net neutrality.
Quote from: Barrister on February 11, 2015, 01:09:37 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 10, 2015, 11:37:58 AM
I would cut the cable but I like sports so I am shit out of luck.
That's where I'm at.
And I. Also, there's a fair chance that my wife would be very angry.
Quote from: Syt on February 10, 2015, 06:12:11 PM
There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad." :lol:
Should I watch that show?
Everyone should watch that show.
Quote from: Syt on February 10, 2015, 06:12:11 PM
There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad." :lol:
I remember when every TV news story about a small Swedish town featured the Twin Peaks music. No matter how inappropriate.
The FCC is about the save the internet once again. Will this 3rd time be the last time?
I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.
That's always the threat. I say it's bullshit but I am willing to take the chance.
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 01:04:11 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 10, 2015, 06:12:11 PM
There's been some cases where meth labs have been uncovered over here. Almost every news article contains the phrase "Crystal meth - as known from the TV show Breaking Bad." :lol:
Should I watch that show?
BB is an awesome show.
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.
Because it might cut their profit margin from 97% (real number, calculated, based on public P&L statement) to something like maybe 93% (number pulled from my ass).
It's not exactly asking ISPs to bend over and take it.
I am skeptical of that profit margin number.
My main objection is to increasing regulations to solve a problem that doesn't exist. One can argue that the problem will inevitably arise if the regulations are not imposed, but then one has the burden to demonstrate that this is, indeed, true. Regulations have costs (including unforeseen consequences) and should be avoided except where necessary.
Anyway the FCC just voted for Net Neutrality. So freedom!
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.
We've heard that in Canada when we deregulated the long distance call market. I'm still waiting for doomsday, it's been 25 years now, and I'm paying 3,5cents/min instead of 35cents/min.
Quote from: viper37 on February 26, 2015, 08:54:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 26, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
I hear that if high speed lanes are not allowed it will reduce the investment in new tech to speed up the internet as a whole.
Also, something about the high investment required to make new lines.
We've heard that in Canada when we deregulated the long distance call market. I'm still waiting for doomsday, it's been 25 years now, and I'm paying 3,5cents/min instead of 35cents/min.
yeah. That's why it is peculiar that people are calling for more regulation on the internet, when deregulation worked so well on the rest of telecoms. Maybe they liked the regulated regime for non-cost reasons?
Then again, there is also an argument that addressing a problem before it has a chance to become entrenched, distort the market and lead to serious consequences for its actors (both content providers and consumers) is better.
It's not like monopolisation patterns are something that cannot be predicted by the economic theory - they work pretty much the same way in every "access to network" monopoly/oligopoly.
If you take a longer view the paths of the internet and telephony are pretty similar. When telephones were first created a mess of different systems were created, until gradually increasing popularity (and desire of easy interconnection) forced standardization and integration. The phone system went further into over-regulation/monopoly problems. The internet isn't even close to that situation yet, but then it is a hundred years younger.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2015, 01:53:32 AM
Then again, there is also an argument that addressing a problem before it has a chance to become entrenched, distort the market and lead to serious consequences for its actors (both content providers and consumers) is better.
Yes, that's the argument I mentioned in my post.
QuoteIt's not like monopolisation patterns are something that cannot be predicted by the economic theory - they work pretty much the same way in every "access to network" monopoly/oligopoly.
That would be a valid point if we were seeing increasing monopolization versus decreasing. There are more options for consumers now than ever before, and options will only increase as technology matures. Regulating dinosaur speed is only going to make them less competitive with the mammals.
I guess my point is that regulation shouldn't be undertaken just because it can be. Sure, it may be necessary, but the default assumption should be against government interference unless it can be shown to be necessary, rather than in favor of it unless it can be shown to be unnecessary.
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
even the smaller competitors use the big guys infrastructure. It'd be easy enough to ramp down their speeds without net neutrality.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2015, 07:24:18 AM
That would be a valid point if we were seeing increasing monopolization versus decreasing. There are more options for consumers now than ever before, and options will only increase as technology matures. Regulating dinosaur speed is only going to make them less competitive with the mammals.
I guess my point is that regulation shouldn't be undertaken just because it can be. Sure, it may be necessary, but the default assumption should be against government interference unless it can be shown to be necessary, rather than in favor of it unless it can be shown to be unnecessary.
The bureaucracy must expand to meet the continuing demands of the bureaucracy... :bowler:
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
That's the result of regulation. And now you want
more regulation. Good luck with that.
Quote from: HVC on February 27, 2015, 08:19:11 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
even the smaller competitors use the big guys infrastructure. It'd be easy enough to ramp down their speeds without net neutrality.
wich was happening in Canada, with Bell, a few years ago.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2015, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
That's the result of regulation. And now you want more regulation. Good luck with that.
There are over 300 pages of regulations that have been kept secret. Have those details been released yet?
FCC commissioner Wheeler was supposed to testify to Congress the day before the vote on the new regs, but he refused.
I don't know if these regs we know about are good or bad ideas, but I don't think I like the secrecy behind some of this. They've released some parts that appeal to people but what are the rest of the regs?
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2015, 07:24:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2015, 01:53:32 AM
Then again, there is also an argument that addressing a problem before it has a chance to become entrenched, distort the market and lead to serious consequences for its actors (both content providers and consumers) is better.
Yes, that's the argument I mentioned in my post.
QuoteIt's not like monopolisation patterns are something that cannot be predicted by the economic theory - they work pretty much the same way in every "access to network" monopoly/oligopoly.
That would be a valid point if we were seeing increasing monopolization versus decreasing. There are more options for consumers now than ever before, and options will only increase as technology matures. Regulating dinosaur speed is only going to make them less competitive with the mammals.
I guess my point is that regulation shouldn't be undertaken just because it can be. Sure, it may be necessary, but the default assumption should be against government interference unless it can be shown to be necessary, rather than in favor of it unless it can be shown to be unnecessary.
The Europeans tend not to understand that.
EDIT: Heck, we're bad enough about it ourselves.
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2015, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
That's the result of regulation. And now you want more regulation. Good luck with that.
Well, yes. Only regulation can stop them from destroying the dream.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 28, 2015, 07:41:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 27, 2015, 03:42:48 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 27, 2015, 07:45:10 AM
There are no options for consumers. It's all Verizon and Comcast controlled.
That's the result of regulation. And now you want more regulation. Good luck with that.
Well, yes. Only regulation can stop them from destroying the dream.
The dream of having no choice? That's a dream worth destroying.
You already have no choice, I don't see how letting them also dictate which websites you can visit is giving you MORE choice.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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?
You don't. Myself, no company is, Canada has strong net neutrality regulation.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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!
Quote from: grumbler on February 26, 2015, 04:43:56 PM
My main objection is to increasing regulations to solve a problem that doesn't exist. One can argue that the problem will inevitably arise if the regulations are not imposed, but then one has the burden to demonstrate that this is, indeed, true. Regulations have costs (including unforeseen consequences) and should be avoided except where necessary.
Your main objection is ideological.
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2015, 01:00:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 02, 2015, 01:33:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2015, 01:00:59 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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.
Unless I'm mistaken, virtually everyone has a choice of getting internet through the phone line or the cable line. So not a monopoly.
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:43:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 01, 2015, 09:49:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on March 02, 2015, 01:42:33 PM
I really hate monopolies. They are the second worst enemies of free market after crony capitalism and goverment over-regulation.
1, 2, ... 2?
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 04:23:28 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 02, 2015, 06:39:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
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.
How do you think Wifi works?
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2015, 06:32:34 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
The fact that ISP companies want to strike down net neutrality laws is evidence that they want to do what people fear, I would think. Why fight a regulation if you have no interest in doing what is currently illegal.
I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.
We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed. Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.
Netflix Performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/)
Graph of Netflix Traffic Speed after Paying Comcast (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/)
Verizon Throttles Netflix Traffic (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 07:28:36 PM
I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.
We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed. Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?
bell own the infrastructure, so another ISP provider rents access to resell. Bell was slowing down their access so that bell could claim faster speeds.
The problem with slowing down sites is that it inconveniences consumers and slows down progress. Imagine if ask Jeeves had had the ability to pay for faster uploads then the upstart google. We'd still be stuck with crappy search engines.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 07:28:36 PM
I don't know what you mean by slow down their competition Hillary.
We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed. Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?
Because the internet is based on the principal that data is not "owned" by those who are transmitting it, and hence there should not be any preference given to some data over others. The entire technical basis for the internet is that it is a shared, distributed network. It never would have had the success it has had if the moment it was created every player started screwing over the other players data packets in favor of their own. The reason it works is because the participants DO NOT play favorites with the data, they just send it along.
Now, of course, the internet is a rather different creature from where it started, but the technical underpinnings have not changed. It is a classic shared resource. It is like saying "Now that individual companies have bought out the rights to part of the interstate, why shouldn't they be allowed to force anyone they don't like to drive 15 MPH while their traffic is allowed to go 75...even when it actually makes no difference to them at all?"
It is a problem because the internet works BECAUSE it is a shared and equal mover of data. It requires a bunch of different entitites to move that data around in a transparent manner. When I press send on this messages, the "internet" is going to take the packets that make up that data and dump it into the bucket for delivery to the languish server. There is not actual "pipe", it just goes into the network, and each hop knows how to send it to the next, without knowing how it is going to get to its destination. This is how this technology works, and the key to it working is that nobody tries to play favorites based on what is written on the envelope. Once people do, the entire thing is going to become much less efficient at doing what it does, and that would only be in service of the internet becoming more efficient at making money for the giant players.
There is no upside to the end of net neutrality. The only winners will be the giant corporations ability to make more money by selling a shittier service.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 07:28:36 PM
We have no problem with retail customers paying more for higher speed. Why does it become a problem when they do it with sites instead of viewers?
Because a carrier can throttle the speed of a site when they want to introduce a competing site.
"Watch your movies on VeriFlix! Always streams smoothly, it doesn't stutter like Netflix."
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
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.
Why should the smaller firms wait for years and invest money in lawyers instead of technology?
Shouldn't the government act in a way to protect free market, even if that means having regulations? I know, it looks silly when we say this, but sometimes, it is needed.
Quote
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.
There are two kinds of customers:
- end users. You and me. We buy internet access, we use it for ourselves.
- resellers. They buy internet access (or phone, or tv access for some), they buy a block, with a guaranteed speed. Then they go around and ressell these internet blocks to end users, sometimes at better prices than the line owner, since they are often smaller and more efficient.
Now, what happens if lineowner starts to throttle the speed of its resellers to provide faster access to his own services?
Or what if Bell and Shaw decide that Netflix traffic has to be throttled down so their own CraveTV gets a boost? And it did happen in the US with Netflix. Hence the need for net neutrality, so that everyone can compete. It's not like every company can build their network nowadays. Even if it was technically feasible, I can't imagine having a dozen lines in every streets for each services.
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2015, 07:20:20 PM
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.
I was pretty sure viper's description of what happened was wrong. Not that I am saying that you are wrong as well, but this isn't something that has happened in the US and, if it does happen, is easily solved by specific regulation. General ad hoc regulation "just in case" seems like overkill, if post hoc regulation is so effective.
Quote from: frunk on March 02, 2015, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 06:48:36 PM
The US has monopolies, but they haven't tried to throttle the internet speeds of the firms they carry.
Netflix Performance on Verizon and Comcast has been dropping for months (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/)
Graph of Netflix Traffic Speed after Paying Comcast (http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/)
Verizon Throttles Netflix Traffic (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth)
All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix. As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2015, 08:36:06 PM
Why should the smaller firms wait for years and invest money in lawyers instead of technology?
Indeed. why should they? That's
exactly why regulation is a bad thing except when necessary; it requires lawyers, not technologists.
QuoteShouldn't the government act in a way to protect free market, even if that means having regulations? I know, it looks silly when we say this, but sometimes, it is needed.
I'm not sure how unnecessary regulations, and the resultant unnecessary time and expense in developing, promulgating, understanding, making new rules to ensure compliance, and then enforcement, serve to promote a "free market." If it is needed, then we can regulate. until it is needed, we should not. What is so unreasonable about that position? It's pretty much the same position most people have about public issues that they actually understand.
QuoteThere are two kinds of customers:
- end users. You and me. We buy internet access, we use it for ourselves.
- resellers. They buy internet access (or phone, or tv access for some), they buy a block, with a guaranteed speed. Then they go around and ressell these internet blocks to end users, sometimes at better prices than the line owner, since they are often smaller and more efficient.
So "all the customers" includes all of these people? And they all get the same "full service?" Or did maybe you mis-speak?
QuoteNow, what happens if lineowner starts to throttle the speed of its resellers to provide faster access to his own services?
Or what if Bell and Shaw decide that Netflix traffic has to be throttled down so their own CraveTV gets a boost? And it did happen in the US with Netflix. Hence the need for net neutrality, so that everyone can compete.
This didn't happen to Netflix. All that happened was that bad ISPs like Verizon oversold their systems and speeds went down. Not just for Netflix. Some frothy sites claim that Netflix's problems were part of a big conspiracy, but none of the reputable sites do so.
QuoteA likely explanation for recent slowdowns is that Netflix usage went up, but peering and transit bandwidth didn't.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/ (http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/)
Now, if an ISP is using its monopoly position for unfair benefit to itself, then you need regulations appropriate to end such abuse. But, until there is evidence of abuse, regulations are going to be scattershot and full of unintended consequences.
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix. As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).
What do you make of access fees Netflix paid to Comcast and Verizon in order to ensure that Comcast and Verizon customers could get better performance for their content?
Quote from: frunk on March 02, 2015, 09:51:04 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 09:24:59 PM
All that shows is that internet access speeds have slowed for Netflix. As even the ars technica article concedes, that doesn't mean that Verizon is doing anything to throttle speeds, nor that the problem is specific to Netflix (the other links are laughable, so i won't comment on them).
What do you make of access fees Netflix paid to Comcast and Verizon in order to ensure that Comcast and Verizon customers could get better performance for their content?
I don't know enough about those fees to comment.
Quote from: Barrister on March 02, 2015, 04:32:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 02, 2015, 01:58:53 PM
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.
Price fixing is what happens when a market is dominated by a company.
Has anyone come with an equation to project price fixing?
[Research Question]
What percentage of a market has to be controlled by one company for price fixing and price immitation to occur?
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 02, 2015, 10:20:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2015, 09:13:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2015, 07:20:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 02, 2015, 07:15:32 PM
How do you think Wifi works?
magic.
:yes: Travels over ley lines.
You realize that GF is likely to believe you guys, right?
:rolleyes: Wifi is not a different network.
:lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 02, 2015, 10:20:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 02, 2015, 09:44:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 02, 2015, 09:13:34 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 02, 2015, 07:20:45 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 02, 2015, 07:15:32 PM
How do you think Wifi works?
magic.
:yes: Travels over ley lines.
You realize that GF is likely to believe you guys, right?
:rolleyes: Wifi is not a different network.
Exactly.
Quote from: Siege on March 03, 2015, 04:24:29 PM
Price fixing is what happens when a market is dominated by a company.
Has anyone come with an equation to project price fixing?
[Research Question]
What percentage of a market has to be controlled by one company for price fixing and price immitation to occur?
See:
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hhi.html
:)
There are a lot of strong views about NN but it seems to me a very complicated and fact-dependent and intensive issue. It does seem to me a priori that a NN rule might inhibit efficient bargaining. The competition concerns seem rather inchoate but the problem is that in the absence of a NN it might be difficult to monitor impact. Really not sure how I come out on this one.
Wonder how many years this will be in the court?
http://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-net-neutrality-rules-hit-federal-register-lawsuit-underway/
QuoteNet neutrality rules get published -- let the lawsuits begin
Now that the FCC's new rules have been published in the Federal Register, a 60-day clock has started for them to take effect. That is, unless USTelecom can stop that.
by Don Reisinger
@donreisinger
/April 13, 2015 1:52 PM PDT
The Federal Communications Commission's rules for a free and open Internet were published Monday in the Federal Register, putting them one step closer to reality -- and officially subject to lawsuits.
The publication of the 400-page Net neutrality order in the federal government's journal of regulations starts a 60-day clock before it takes effect (on June 12). But it also means companies can officially take the FCC to court over the rules. And they didn't waste any time.
Under the new rules -- approved by the FCC in February and then released to the public in March -- Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are not allowed to block lawful content, slow down applications or services, or accept fees for favored treatment. The rules essentially provide a framework for all Internet traffic to be treated equally. To do so, the FCC has reclassified broadband in a way that places providers under the same strict regulations that now govern telephone networks.
That reclassification hasn't gone down well with broadband providers, who say it could give the FCC authority to set rates and impose tariffs that could translate into higher fees to consumers, stifle innovation and discourage companies from building new broadband networks and improving existing ones.
USTelecom, a consortium of ISPs, had announced after the new rules were approved that it would file an injunction against them, arguing that they are "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion," and violate federal law. Just minutes after the rules were published Monday in the Federal Register, USTelecom filed its suit.
If a court decides USTelecom's suit holds water, it could block the rules from taking effect, resulting in a protracted legal mess. Other lawsuits are also expected to be filed in the coming weeks.
The FCC, for its part, is keeping a confident face: "As Chairman Wheeler has said, we are confident the FCC's new Open Internet rules will be upheld by the courts, ensuring enforceable protections for consumers and innovators online," an agency spokeswoman said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 04, 2015, 12:33:28 PM
There are a lot of strong views about NN but it seems to me a very complicated and fact-dependent and intensive issue. It does seem to me a priori that a NN rule might inhibit efficient bargaining. The competition concerns seem rather inchoate but the problem is that in the absence of a NN it might be difficult to monitor impact. Really not sure how I come out on this one.
Don't lie. You hate free market capitalism, so we all know where you come out on this one, to the far left of Raz, if such a thing is possible.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSImSu8SIM2GEMmlCoiREY9Nv6YCS9Dn_7c701DfgxTvGfOTpEbCg)
Quote from: Siege on April 16, 2015, 02:49:12 PM
Don't lie. You hate free market capitalism, so we all know where you come out on this one, to the far left of Raz, if such a thing is possible.
He's actually pretty moderate. For instance, he expects the invisible hand will continue creating enough good jobs to go around.