F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules

[battletoad]

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



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.

A quick google would answer that for you.

https://www.google.co.za/amp/s/arst...5mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/?amp=1

Basically, about half of the population has no option of who their broadband provider is.

So yes, less regulation is probably the better option, IF there were competition. Look no further than Telkom now and a decade ago to see how competition influences incumbents, and by extension, consumer choice.

 

[konfab]

You:

A quick google would answer that for you.
Basically, about half of the population has no option of who their broadband provider is.

The article:

The household analysis found a slightly better, but still troubling, situation, with nearly half of the 118 million US households lacking any wired Internet choice at the FCC's broadband standard of 25Mbp

And once you include wireless, the amount of people drops to quite small amount.

 

[battletoad]

You:


The article:


View attachment 485762

And? About 47-48 people in 100 isn't about half the population?

And once you include wireless, the amount of people drops to quite small amount.

So 42% is "quite small"?

Either way, instead of haggling over percentage points, does the data suggest that there is serious competition?

 

[Nicodeamus]

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.

This was my first post in the thread, but ok whatever floats your boats.

Yes I am aware that telecom provides do hold a monopoly over in the US, but I do not see this as a big evil, if they continue to have bad business practices then that will create an avenue for an entrepreneur. Having worked on traffic networks, it does make sense to invest more money where you do have more congestion, I don't see how this is a bad model for business.

Once again I can point to the railway networks, they died pretty much the day that governments forced them to charge the same fees for everyone else, it became to expensive to maintain. There are undoubtedly going to be problems and some people are going to score big time, but I do not see this as a big apocalyptic evil that is about to come.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

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

And yet others are telling us the god of the free market will ensure they'll have to compete to stay alive. So which is it?

It's fiction that this regulation inhibited investment and made life so difficult for telecoms. They themselves said it hasn't.

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

No, that you're parroting standard 'muh regulation' tropes where in fact it actually fixed the problem.

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.

So it's better for companies and consumers. Sounds good to me.

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.

Strawmen everywhere!

 

[Nick333]

And yet others are telling us the god of the free market will ensure they'll have to compete to stay alive. So which is it?

It's fiction that this regulation inhibited investment and made life so difficult for telecoms. They themselves said it hasn't.



No, that you're parroting standard 'muh regulation' tropes where in fact it actually fixed the problem.



So it's better for companies and consumers. Sounds good to me.



Strawmen everywhere !

The unintentional irony!

Net neutrality was built on a strawman. It was regulation to protect against a problem that doesn't exist and never did. Now that it's been repealed, ISP's are going to rape us all, despite being free to have done so prior to the existence of net neutrality regulation.

Net neutrality was a false flag operation.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The unintentional irony!

Net neutrality was built on a strawman. It was regulation to protect against a problem that doesn't exist and never did. Now that it's been repealed, ISP's are going to rape us all, despite being free to have done so prior to the existence of net neutrality regulation.

Net neutrality was a false flag operation.

Incorrect.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/t...-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/

Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007), have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014), hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016), and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016). These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all.

https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/

 

[RanzB]

It was regulation to protect against a problem that doesn't exist and never did.

:crylaugh:

 

[The_Assimilator]

Incorrect.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/t...-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/



https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/

Just call him what he is: A liar.

 

[ranger]

Incorrect.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/t...-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/



https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/

So, the Americans do have some problems with monopolies in their ISP market.

But, Net Neutrality wasn't the right solution to these problems (in my opinion).

For example, I don't believe we need Net Neutrality regulations in South Africa at all.

As far a I know, consumer protection legislation is a bit lacking in the U.S. (for all other markets they seem to think that a free market is the solution) which would address most complaints, such as hidden fees, undocumented limits, early contract termination fees etc.

The only regulations they need are to require last-mile infrastructure owners with significant market share (e.g. more than 25% in a county) to provide wholesale services (e.g. something like IP Comnect or IP Stream) to any ISP who satisfies reasonable conditions.

Please provide an example that a reasonable implemenation of Net Neutrality would solve that a combination on consumer protection regulations, requirements to provide network access to other ISPs, and existing anti-competition prevention law would not solve.

Internet providers have attempted to throttle traffic by type or by user (Comcast in 2007),

Here, the biggest complaint was that shaping of p2p was not disclosed, and the whole complaint was successfully addressed before Net Neutrality regulations.

have imposed arbitrary and secret caps on data (AT&T 2011-2014),

This one is about users who took the unlimited data at 1Mbps on iPhone 3G and complained that they were throttled to 512kbps after using lots of data at LTE speeds (on a plan that was grandfathered and never sold for LTE).

While they could have gone about it a different way, it really isn't reasonable to expect an unlimited product you bought at 1Mbps be unlimited at 50Mbps.

But, again, this was dealt with without Et Neutrality regulations.

hidden fees that had no justification or documentation (Comcast in 2016),

Consumer protection laws cover this for many industries/markets (at least in South Africa, if the U.S. doesn't have adequate consumet protections, that would be a better thing to fix).

and tried to give technical advantages to their own services over those of competitors (AT&T in 2016).

So, this questionable practice occurred while Net Neutralty regulations were in effect (if I have it right).

These attempts were only revealed in retrospect once they were discovered and lawsuits filed. If the deterrents those lawsuits provided eventually had been part of preemptive rulemaking then these practices would never have been attempted at all.

Of the 3 examples provided, 2 were dealt with regardless of Net Neutrality regulations, and the 3rd was not prevented by Net Neutrality regulations, as you claim it should have been.

 

[ponder]

As far a I know, consumer protection legislation is a bit lacking in the U.S. (for all other markets they seem to think that a free market is the solution) which would address most complaints, such as hidden fees, undocumented limits, early contract termination fees etc.

A side effect of net neutrality kicking in 2015 was the FTC losing jurisdiction when all these entities were granted title 2 status. The FTC has way more history and experience when it comes to consumer protection than the FCC.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

So, the Americans do have some problems with monopolies in their ISP market.

But, Net Neutrality wasn't the right solution to these problems (in my opinion).

For example, I don't believe we need Net Neutrality regulations in South Africa at all.

As far a I know, consumer protection legislation is a bit lacking in the U.S. (for all other markets they seem to think that a free market is the solution) which would address most complaints, such as hidden fees, undocumented limits, early contract termination fees etc.

The only regulations they need are to require last-mile infrastructure owners with significant market share (e.g. more than 25% in a county) to provide wholesale services (e.g. something like IP Comnect or IP Stream) to any ISP who satisfies reasonable conditions.

Please provide an example that a reasonable implemenation of Net Neutrality would solve that a combination on consumer protection regulations, requirements to provide network access to other ISPs, and existing anti-competition prevention law would not solve.

Their vote removed many of those consumer protections, too.

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

Besides the core net neutrality rules, numerous other consumer protections are being lost as a result of today's vote. Rules requiring greater disclosure of hidden fees and penalties for exceeding data caps have been eliminated, and the FCC is relinquishing its role in evaluating whether ISPs can charge competitors for data cap exemptions.

But yeah, the local loop unbundling is how the UK did it, and it seems to have worked quite well there.

Regarding hoping that the FTC will be able to provide consumer protection seems to be a bit of an non-starter according to a current FTC commissioner and a former 25 year staffer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.85206c31ba63
https://qz.com/1144994/the-fcc-plans-to-kill-the-open-internet-dont-count-on-the-ftc-to-save-it/

 

[konfab]

Regarding hoping that the FTC will be able to provide consumer protection seems to be a bit of an non-starter according to a current FTC commissioner and a former 25 year staffer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.85206c31ba63
https://qz.com/1144994/the-fcc-plans-to-kill-the-open-internet-dont-count-on-the-ftc-to-save-it/

Her boss disagrees:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/348529-after-the-fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-the-ftc-wont-leave

Maureen K. Ohlhausen is acting chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1280393/putting_the_ftc_cop_back_on_the_beat_mko.pdf

Lets look at their qualifications to see who might be more correct on the matter:

Maureen K. Ohlhausen is Acting Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. She was sworn in as Commissioner on April 4, 2012, to a term that expires in September 2018.[1] On January 26, 2017, President Donald Trump designated Ohlhausen to serve as Acting Chairman of the FTC.[2]

Prior to joining the Commission, Ohlhausen was a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, where she focused on FTC issues, including privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity.[1]

Ohlhausen previously served at the Commission for 11 years, most recently as Director of the Office of Policy Planning from 2004 to 2008, where she led the FTC's Internet Access Task Force. She was also Deputy Director of that office. From 1998 to 2001, Ohlhausen was an attorney advisor for former FTC Commissioner Orson Swindle, advising him on competition and consumer protection matters. She started at the FTC General Counsel’s Office in 1997.[1]

Before coming to the FTC, Ohlhausen spent five years at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, serving as a law clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle and as a staff attorney. Ohlhausen also clerked for Judge Robert Yock of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims from 1991 to 1992.[1]

Ohlhausen graduated with distinction from Antonin Scalia Law School in 1991 and graduated with honors from the University of Virginia in 1984.[1]

Ohlhausen was on the adjunct faculty at George Mason University School of Law, where she taught privacy law and unfair trade practices. She served as a Senior Editor of the Antitrust Law Journal and a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Competition and Public Policy. She has authored a variety of articles on competition law, privacy, and technology matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Ohlhausen

Prior to joining the Commission, McSweeny served as Chief Counsel for Competition Policy and Intergovernmental Relations for the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division. She joined the Antitrust Division after serving as Deputy Assistant to the President and Domestic Policy Advisor to the Vice President from January 2009 until February 2012, advising President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on policy in a variety of areas, including health care, innovation, intellectual property, energy, education, women’s rights, criminal justice and domestic violence.[1]

McSweeny’s government service also includes her work as Senator Joe Biden’s Deputy Chief of Staff and Policy Director in the U.S. Senate, where she managed domestic and economic policy development and legislative initiatives, and as Counsel on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where she worked on issues such as criminal justice, innovation, women's rights, domestic violence, judicial nominations and immigration and civil rights. She also worked as an attorney at O'Melveny & Myers LLP.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_McSweeny

Hmmm, should we take the advice of someone who is a legal expert on antitrust law or should we take the advice of a staffer who worked for the previous administration.

 

[RanzB]

Hmmm, should we take the advice of someone who is a legal expert on antitrust law or should we take the advice of a staffer who worked for the previous administration.

Yeah what a load of BS. Trying to paint Sweeney as 'just a staffer' (she's been with the FTC for 25 years) while attempting to deepthroat Ohlhausen's credentials is a stupid way to determine who's right.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Her boss disagrees:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/348529-after-the-fcc-repeals-net-neutrality-the-ftc-wont-leave

First, the FTC’s antitrust tools protect the competitive process, which motivates companies to deliver what consumers want.

Like what? Why doesn't she mention these 'tools'?

If a broadband provider makes a public commitment to certain neutral practices, but breaks that promise, the FTC could bring a deception case.

So did Maureen miss that Comcast deleted their 'pledge' about net neutrality when it became clear the FCC would repeal it?

Indeed, the FTC is currently using its deception and unfairness authority in a net neutrality-like case against AT&T Mobility, which allegedly throttled its “unlimited” data plans.

Wait, I thought this didn't happen and it's all made up? Weird how that turns out to be not be remotely true.

Lets look at their qualifications to see who might be more correct on the matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Ohlhausen



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_McSweeny

Hmmm, should we take the advice of someone who is a legal expert on antitrust law or should we take the advice of a staffer who worked for the previous administration.

McSweeny was a Chief Counsel in the DOJ's Antitrust Division, so she's an expert in it, too.

And Rich seems quite qualified to talk about whether or not the FTC can play consumer watchdog here.

But as someone who spent more than 25 years enforcing the law at the FTC, I know there’s a serious problem with touting the FTC as a substitute for the soon-to-be-repealed net neutrality rules. Putting aside the question of whether the FTC has the resources and rulemaking powers to adequately address this important issue (it doesn’t), there’s the more fundamental question of whether the FTC even has legal authority over Internet providers.

And oh look, here's Ohlhausen praising Rich for her work and expertise in exactly the area where Rich says the FTC won't be the answer. :crylaugh:

And if administration ties are a problem then Ohlhausen (who was made acting chair by Trump) is likewise tainted. Oh, and she's putting out PR op-eds with Ajit Pai (who was also appointed by Trump as chair) who's responsible for the repeal in the first place.

Then again, these are the same 2 idiot shills that put out op-eds defending noted liberty lover Republicans' policies that lets ISPs sell consumers' private information without their consent.

 

[konfab]

Yeah what a load of BS. Trying to paint Sweeney as 'just a staffer' (she's been with the FTC for 25 years) while attempting to deepthroat Ohlhausen's credentials is a stupid way to determine who's right.

Tough day for English?

Lets look at their qualifications to see who might be more correct on the matter:

Someone who is a legal expert on the FTC and had significant experience in dealing with court cases surrounding the FTC is far more likely to be correct and unbiased on the matter than someone who served in the government that implemented the damn regulations for their own nefarious reasons.

You want more evidence, look at their statements:
McSweeny says:

For more than a decade, the status quo in the United States has been an open internet that promotes consumer welfare, upholds democratic values, and supports thriving innovation. Today’s vote by the FCC is a departure from longstanding bipartisan consensus about the importance of the open internet. It promises to benefit powerful internet platform companies and broadband ISPs at the expense of American consumers and innovation.”

With no citations or anything
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1293263/mcsweeny_statement_on_net_neutrality_vote_-_dec_14_2017.pdf

Ohlhausen says:

We have a long history of actively protecting consumers and promoting competition across a wide range of industries. This includes highly technical industries such as microprocessors and pharmaceuticals, where we study the competitive dynamics of a complex industry to evaluate a company’s practices. We have brought a multitude of cases against companies big and small, stopping anticompetitive behavior and saving consumers billions of dollars. We’ve reviewed mergers involving ISPs and online content, such as AOL/TimeWarner, 2 and brought consumer protection cases against companies like Apple,3 AT&T,4 Dish,5 Facebook,6 Google,7 T-Mobile,8 and many others. Indeed, the FTC closely watched the behavior of the early on-ramps to the Internet and brought cases against AOL, Compuserve, Juno, and Prodigy for deceiving consumers about their services. And we have an ongoing case against AT&T Mobility for allegedly unfairly and deceptively throttling broadband speeds on unlimited wireless data plans. Wireless provider TracFone settled with us for similar behavior

All of those numbers are citations of actual cases that they have dealt with.

Without even looking at the content, the fact that Ohlhausen makes her assertions with evidence is already proof that she is making a better argument.

Using those cases, Ohlhausen clearly states that the FTC is well equipped to deal with uncompetitive behavior if it happens.

And then the interesting part alas comes out. The reason why I think companies like Facebook and Google don't want the FTC to be involved with the internet is that they are bona-fide monopolies, more so than any ISP. Hence having the FTC involved makes their lives more difficult. Unless if you think that Facebook and Google are fighting for net neutrality for the good of the consumer?

 

[RanzB]

Tough day for English?

Oh please, don't act like you don't know what you were insinuating.

As for the rest of your blather, having regulations in place is a better way than trying to fight these things on a case by case basis, as per AT&T's case:

At the time of the lawsuit, though telephone voice service offered by AT&T was clearly a common-carrier service, broadband service wasn’t and the FTC prevailed in the lower court. But in a surprise ruling last year, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, deciding in favor of AT&T. It ruled that if you’re a common carrier, you’re exempt from FTC enforcement even if you offer non-common-carrier services.

What is the status of this case now? Unresolved. The 9th Circuit has agreed to rehear the case before the full appeals court. But its impact on the repeal of net neutrality can’t be overstated. If the court again rules in favor of AT&T, then Pai’s assurance that the FTC can and will protect consumers from Internet providers after the rollback of net neutrality is simply not true.

They'll just tie these things up in court until there's no more money for the FTC to go after them.

But yeah, to Trumpites 'limited' and 'unlimited' mean the same thing when it's a corporation giving you the definition of words

 

[konfab]

So did Maureen miss that Comcast deleted their 'pledge' about net neutrality when it became clear the FCC would repeal it?

.

lol

• Comcast won't block access to lawful content

• Comcast won't throttle back the speed at which content comes to you

• Comcast doesn't prioritize Internet traffic or create paid fast lanes

• Comcast's Internet Essentials will make the Internet more accessible to low income families

• Comcast will inspire innovation, promote learning, create access to jobs

An Open Internet with access for all. That's what we're for.


Well, after April 26, Comcast scrapped the parts about more access for low income families, creating access to jobs, promoting learning and "an open internet with access for all." It now reads:


Comcast is committed to an Open Internet.

• We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content.

• We believe in full transparency in our customer policies.

• We are for sustainable and legally enforceable net neutrality protections for our customers.

That part in bold covers exactly all the strawman arguments you tools have been moaning about. If Facebook is lawful content, then they have stated they won't slow it down. What it is missing is the feel good statements that ObamaNet required.

 

[konfab]

As for the rest of your blather, having regulations in place is a better way than trying to fight these things on a case by case basis, as per AT&T's case

You don't really see the economic cost of those regulations do you? You obviously have the omnipresence to know all possibilities in the future to see how companies can innovate by offering certain types of content. To use a local South African example, CellC effectively violates the net neutrality laws that Obama wanted by offering a Whatsapp only package that give you 600mb of data for R12. That is an innovative offering that actually helps consumers.

Intent behind actions is extremely important, which is why dealing with things on a case by case basis is extremely important.

They'll just tie these things up in court until there's no more money for the FTC to go after them.

In Randhir's world, AT&T has more money than the US government. That is stupid, even for you.

 

[RanzB]

You don't really see the economic cost of those regulations do you? You obviously have the omnipresence to know all possibilities in the future to see how companies can innovate by offering certain types of content. To use a local South African example, CellC effectively violates the net neutrality laws that Obama wanted by offering a Whatsapp only package that give you 600mb of data for R12. That is an innovative offering that actually helps consumers.

Haha yeah, trust a Trumpite to ignore the actual case in the country we're talking about and instead bring up an example from a different country.

In Randhir's world, AT&T has more money than the US government. That is stupid, even for you.

:wtf: :crylaugh: :crylaugh: Yes, I'm sure in a Trumpite's world, the FTC is going to be funded to defence spending levels by the party that wants less regulation

Do you even know how government spending works ? :crylaugh: