F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[Nick333]

How much of the average ISP's infrastructure is cabled through public land? It might be their property but their is now way an ISP could exist if they didn't have concessions to use either the wireless spectrum or do be able to lay cable on public land. If you are going to use public resources for your business then yes, you should be subject to government rules telling you to behave fairly to the public..

They pay for the right to run cable through public land.

 

[CataclysmZA]

It's facepalmingly astonishing that you have a problem with private contracts for priority or exclusivity over privately-owned networks. As if that's somehow wrong or immoral or unethical or undesirable.

What I have a problem with is companies which have defacto monopolies in regions across the USA, which are the only viable internet providers in that area, charging companies which provide internet services like Netflix extra money to not have their services throttled on their network, reducing Netflix's ability to deliver services to their customers.

Netflix already pays for bandwidth with their ISP. Consumers already pay for bandwidth with their ISP. Peering contracts exist between these ISPs to enable inter-connectivity. And on top of it all, Comcast decides to throttle Netflix because consumers are using their product for the majority of their streaming.

It's certainly undesirable to me.

Analogously, you want to use the force of the law (ie courts, police and prisons) to force all courier, trucking, taxi, railway and transport companies in the country to carry and deliver one another's parcels. And without any freedom to package, containerize, priorities, or offer bulk or priority pricing.

Uh, no. That's a completely different market with different aims. Courier and package transport companies do not oversell their services, and they don't force their customers to have their package cut in half and take twice the normal amount of time to arrive because there's only so much space in the truck and they can't just not deliver it.

As an aside, I presume you are aware that the so-called "Net Neutrality" regs haven't yet been implemented, so it's not as if anything changes by the scrapping of the regs.

Of course, because immediately after Title II regulations were rolled in, the companies that stood to lose money because now they actually had to provide a quality service started court proceedings against the FCC and just stalled, delayed, and ignored any requests to comply with the law.

Why? Because we've lobbied for deregulation not more regulation. We've got competition in the morning and if ones ISP throttles ones Netflix one finds a new ISP that won't.

Keep in mind that thanks to the repeal of Title II, that won't be a realistic scenario for a lot of Americans. Part of Title II dealt with access to conduits, telephone poles, and co-location with other established services, and before the regulation change it was within the rights of the incumbent service provider to block a competitor's access to existing infrastructure that they had lobbied the local government to give them.

ISPs that are now delivering fiber internet to areas which had none thanks to lagging service delivery from an incumbent ISP that was given money by the government to improve service delivery, now have to struggle just as they did before Title II to gain access to infrastructure to roll out internet access to their customers. Google wanted to do this with Google Fiber in Chicago, but were met at every turn with Verizon's meddling. They wanted to gain access to the lamp posts within the city to set up a wireless mesh network to roll out gigabit wireless connections, but couldn't because they couldn't share infrastructure with utilities (as the internet wasn't a Title II service), and Verizon simply refused to allow them access to underground PVC pilelines.

Bell System was broken up for this exact same ****ery.

Title II would have put the onus on allowing underground access to local municipalities and government. Title II services enjoy federal protections, which would have strengthened all companies' investments because attacking physical internet infrastructure would be considered a federal crime.

 

[Sinbad]

Looks like there's massive fraud involved in the public submission process.

https://twitter.com/MackenzieAstin/status/941459382864437248

 

[CataclysmZA]

Looks like there's massive fraud involved in the public submission process.

https://twitter.com/MackenzieAstin/status/941459382864437248

There's about a million posts straight up created by bots with false info. It's so frustrating.

 

[Arthur]

There's about a million posts straight up created by bots with false info. It's so frustrating.

... And it could be enemies of the repeal seeding in false submissions from dead lists to intentionally contaminate the process and derail the repeal ... it's how you socially construct news ...

 

[CataclysmZA]

... And it could be enemies of the repeal seeding in false submissions from dead lists to intentionally contaminate the process and derail the repeal ...

Not likely, The FCC refused submissions from concerned parties about the falsified comments, did not allow investigations to take place to look into the comments and the site's logs to figure out where they came from, and maintained that all comments were legitimate. Anyone doing this to somehow sabotage the repeal would have been found out and prosecuted.

 

[Arthur]

It's an ugly business, and it gets especially ugly when people have to pander to politicians to make a living. And of course the politicians are only too willing to oblige - they love to promise other people's property and money to gets votes.

Again, the whole rot starts when government interferes in economic relations. If government didn't arrogate to itself the right to erect barriers to entry and dish out favours and contracts for goods and services that are not essentially part of government then there simply wouldn't be a way for corrupt business people to corrupt government for economic gain.

As a matter of principle I fiercely hold to the separation of powers, especially economic power and political power. Of course nothing is perfect this side of the grave, but it is possible to design and erect a polity that minimises the mutual contamination.

That's was the original vision of the Novus Ordo Seclorum that gave birth to the United States. Especially since Lincoln, the USA has increasingly compromised on that, to the point where the system is now probably beyond peaceful repair and requires another revolution.

Clearly people are being deceitful and lying. That's is outrageous and execrable.

 

[prod]

"If you don't like your ISP just get a new one"

Hoo boy, where have I heard that one before?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Principle not ideology. The principle being that we don't get to piss all over other peoples property rights on the assumption that the businesses that provide us with all the goods and services that we consume like ravenous locusts are actually evil and stupid.

Suddenly the FCC, who were basically just the American censorship board in the days of radio, were the heroes of consumer rights because they created a law to protect consumers from a problem that didn't even exist.

Ja, sorry. You don't get to be the champion of freedom by telling people what they can or can't do with their property. You certainly don't trample on the rights of the few to benefit the many and claim the moral high ground.

So you're against any and all antitrust legislation, I presume?

Personally, I would question the motivation of an obviously intelligent person like Obama who wanted more government regulation of an industry that is already the victim of too much regulation.

This remains fiction.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-fcc-votes-to-allow-blocking-and-throttling/

Pai repeated his claim that "under title II, investment in high-speed networks has declined by billions of dollars." He did not mention that major broadband providers themselves have told investors that Title II hasn't harmed their investment. He also has not provided data to support a new claim that a few small Internet providers were hurt by the rules.

I'm sure there's an argument for smarter regulation or deregulation, specifically at the local level, where roll-out issues are more of an issue.

They had the same issue in the UK and solved it with local loop unbundling forced by the regulator.

https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

Somehow the communist hellholes in Western Europe manage better telecoms networks for less while private entities still make their money.

 

[CataclysmZA]

For anyone interested in the history of the relationship that phone companies have had with Title II regulations over the last hundred years or so, watch this:

[video=youtube;AbJBEBZvDNY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbJBEBZvDNY[/video]

 

[konfab]

They had the same issue in the UK and solved it with local loop unbundling forced by the regulator.

https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

Somehow the communist hellholes in Western Europe manage better telecoms networks for less while private entities still make their money.

Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space.

Quite correct, though I doubt that a US company would be allowed to charge people who live in rural areas more than people who live in local areas. Which means the price has to go up for everyone. You can see this pretty clearly if you have ever had telkom do a line installation in a rural area. It costs in the region of thousands. Which will drive up the average price of the connection regardless of how you get the consumer to pay for it.
The alternative is to simply not connect people who are too expensive , which is what is happening with fiber in this country.

Standing next to an Amsterdam canal, Wagter used a historical analogy: Those canals were built and operated by private firms, he says. When they were built, they helped Amsterdam become the world capital of commerce and finance. But after a hundred years or so, a new technology -- railroads -- was proving itself to be more efficient. The new transportation system was helping Holland's neighbor to the west, the UK, race ahead of the Netherlands. When Dutch entrepreneurs petitioned to build a train, the owners of the canals "were screaming murder".

Not a very good analogy considering the canal owners themselves (aka the ISP) are investing in the railroads (fibre and next generation internet).

 

[konfab]

"If you don't like your ISP just get a new one"

Hoo boy, where have I heard that one before?

That evil and imperialistic concept made Telkom improve their game significantly.

 

[Nicodeamus]

My view is that railways did die the day that the government tried to enforce price fixing laws everywhere. I honestly think the whole net neutrality idea is totally blown out of proportion. If the US companies would like to stay competitive then they will be forced to not throttle everything.

 

[Nick333]

This remains fiction.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...s-fcc-votes-to-allow-blocking-and-throttling/



I'm sure there's an argument for smarter regulation or deregulation, specifically at the local level, where roll-out issues are more of an issue.

They had the same issue in the UK and solved it with local loop unbundling forced by the regulator.

https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/28/why-is-european-broadband-faster-and-cheaper-blame-the-governme/

Somehow the communist hellholes in Western Europe manage better telecoms networks for less while private entities still make their money.

What is fiction? That most states have little to no competition? That's just a fact.

That you've completely missed the point and gone off on a tangent? No I think that's probably true.

As for companies seeing a better return on investment under stricter legislation in Western, Europe, no shyt! In most countries you have a sample size of one incumbent. You mean the previous monopoly is scoring from renting out the infrastructure that was bought and paid for by their captive market? Wow, that's amazing.

 

[The_Assimilator]

It's an ugly business, and it gets especially ugly when people have to pander to politicians to make a living. And of course the politicians are only too willing to oblige - they love to promise other people's property and money to gets votes.

Again, the whole rot starts when government interferes in economic relations. If government didn't arrogate to itself the right to erect barriers to entry and dish out favours and contracts for goods and services that are not essentially part of government then there simply wouldn't be a way for corrupt business people to corrupt government for economic gain.

As a matter of principle I fiercely hold to the separation of powers, especially economic power and political power. Of course nothing is perfect this side of the grave, but it is possible to design and erect a polity that minimises the mutual contamination.

That's was the original vision of the Novus Ordo Seclorum that gave birth to the United States. Especially since Lincoln, the USA has increasingly compromised on that, to the point where the system is now probably beyond peaceful repair and requires another revolution.

Clearly people are being deceitful and lying. That's is outrageous and execrable.

Funny how you attempt to go off on a tangent and derail the argument when confronted with undeniable proof that the process is corrupt. If you actually had principles, maybe you would condemn the specific people responsible for the corruption... but you don't.

That evil and imperialistic concept made Telkom improve their game significantly.

That evil and imperialistic concept that was brought about by laws to prevent monopolies, you mean?

My view is that railways did die the day that the government tried to enforce price fixing laws everywhere. I honestly think the whole net neutrality idea is totally blown out of proportion. If the US companies would like to stay competitive then they will be forced to not throttle everything.

And once again you ignore the point that telecoms providers are de facto monopolies in many parts of the USA, so they don't have to compete, and now - thanks to the repeal of NN - they can throttle, block, charge, do whatever they like. It's an authoritarian's wet dream, which is no surprise since it comes from the party of authoritarianism.

 

[Nick333]

Funny how you attempt to go off on a tangent and derail the argument when confronted with undeniable proof that the process is corrupt. If you actually had principles, maybe you would condemn the specific people responsible for the corruption... but you don't.



That evil and imperialistic concept that was brought about by laws to prevent monopolies, you mean?



And once again you ignore the point that telecoms providers are de facto monopolies in many parts of the USA, so they don't have to compete, and now - thanks to the repeal of NN - they can throttle, block, charge, do whatever they like. It's an authoritarian's wet dream, which is no surprise since it comes from the party of authoritarianism.

Lol. Undeniable proof of what? State your case in one sentence.

 

[konfab]

That evil and imperialistic concept that was brought about by laws to prevent monopolies, you mean?

The same laws that created the monopoly in the first place?

And once again you ignore the point that telecoms providers are de facto monopolies in many parts of the USA, so they don't have to compete, and now - thanks to the repeal of NN - they can throttle, block, charge, do whatever they like. It's an authoritarian's wet dream, which is no surprise since it comes from the party of authoritarianism.

How many parts?

And here is the part you don't understand. If monopoly A decides to hike prices for said person, they create increase the opportunity for their competitors to enter the market in said area. Which means that prices will match what the consumer is willing to pay for. This is how the market operated quite happily for many years.

 

[Arthur]

that telecoms providers are de facto monopolies in many parts of the USA ... It's an authoritarian's wet dream, which is no surprise since it comes from the party of authoritarianism.

Monopolies are not per se a bad thing.

What is bad is a compulsory monopoly, ie one enforced by State power, ie State Authority. That is Authoritarianism.

The local dentist has a monopoly in our area. I don't resent him for it. What I will resent intensely is if that were the State's law.

You just don't get it. You don't see the wood for the trees. Tragic, really.

You are the advocate of authoritarianism.
It is you are urging the State to use its authority to compel owners to provide services on terms they might not freely agree to.
You are lamenting the scrapping of state compulsion that effectively amounts to a partial expropriation by force of law.
You are the fascist.

 

[RanzB]

Monopolies are not per se a bad thing.

What is bad is a compulsory monopoly, ie one enforced by State power, ie State Authority. That is Authoritarianism.

The local dentist has a monopoly in our area. I don't resent him for it. What I will resent intensely is if that were the State's law.

You just don't get it. You don't see the wood for the trees. Tragic, really.

You are the advocate of authoritarianism.
It is you are urging the State to use its authority to compel owners to provide services on terms they might not freely agree to.
You are lamenting the scrapping of state compulsion that effectively amounts to a partial expropriation by force of law.
You are the fascist.

:crylaugh:

 

[konfab]

That evil and imperialistic concept that was brought about by laws to prevent monopolies, you mean?

And it was created by government law.

Just like the type of monopoly that the very same pro-competition net-neutrality people want to create with US healthcare. But that is a government run monopoly, nothing bad can happen with that. I mean no US government has ever abused its power.