Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: tyme on December 20, 2010, 02:51:58 PM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html
The most frightening thing in that op-ed is the allegation that Genachowski has been calling CEOs asking for their blessing of his proposal. If that's true, he should be sacked, immediately. There's an obvious conflict of interest between the FTC and telecom CEOs.
prior aps thread on net neutrality: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=23832
-
One more power grab outside the purview and power of the American people. How long is this going to be tolerated?
-
If net neutrality is passed, then the WikiLeaks hacker retaliation will look like a drop in the bucket...cyberspace will be the next frontier for "active resistance"....
-
The Stupid Party thinks business can do no wrong. :facepalm:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html
-
The Stupid Party thinks business can do no wrong. :facepalm:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html
Safer to trust business and the market than government.
-
Safer to trust business and the market than government.
Depends on the market. If you've got a non-competitive, natural-monopoly market like the ISP market, I have a hard time trusting businesses to do the right thing. They're in it to make money, not to serve the public. I have two options for internet: Qwest and Comcast. I hate both companies, but if I want internet, I don't have a choice. This gives them power.
I don't trust the government to do a good job, generally, but some industries need some government regulation, and the internet might be one of them.
-
I have two options for internet: Qwest and Comcast. I hate both companies, but if I want internet, I don't have a choice.
No, you have more choices. You could go with HughesNet or another satelite provider. Do you have phones out there? You could go back to dial-up. Or if you want a little more speed maybe ISDN service. It's also unlikely that you can't get a T1 dropped into your house.
What people mean when they say they don't have a choice is that they don't have any other choices that they actually like.
What I don't understand is, if we're all so powerless as consumers why aren't we being charged $200/mo for high speed internet?
-
^^^ Over on one of my bicycling websites, a poll was posted asking for the price paid for Internet service and the speed. It was fascinating to see the tremendous variation all across the country and up in Canada. As an example, for 5 Mpbs down and 1 Mbps up, the price ranged from $ 15 to 60 per month.
-
Safer to trust business and the market than government.
This. That's the only thing that makes me come down on this side of it. .gov rules will just be ultimately worse.
^^^ Over on one of my bicycling websites, a poll was posted asking for the price paid for Internet service and the speed. It was fascinating to see the tremendous variation all across the country and up in Canada. As an example, for 5 Mpbs down and 1 Mbps up, the price ranged from $ 15 to 60 per month.
And a de-regulated market would tempt new carriers to come in where it's $60/month, and only charge $50, forcing the previous established carrier to charge only $45... and so on.
-
Depends on the market. If you've got a non-competitive, natural-monopoly market like the ISP market, I have a hard time trusting businesses to do the right thing. They're in it to make money, not to serve the public. I have two options for internet: Qwest and Comcast. I hate both companies, but if I want internet, I don't have a choice. This gives them power.
I don't trust the government to do a good job, generally, but some industries need some government regulation, and the internet might be one of them.
I hope you do realize that part of your problem is the local phone and cable TV monopolies that are already pre-existing.
-
First .gov will move to regulate costs. Next, they will start to regulate content. It will happen.
-
First .gov will move to regulate costs. Next, they will start to regulate content. It will happen.
Werd.
-
What I don't understand is, if we're all so powerless as consumers why aren't we being charged $200/mo for high speed internet?
What I don't understand is, if we're all so powerful as consumers why don't all customers in major metro areas have the option of FTTP, and 100mbit/s+ throughout our ISPs network? If you're lucky enough to have Verizon as your monopolistic telephone provider, you might have that option. The rest of us don't.
As MechAg pointed out, there are preexisting monopolies: 2 telcos in most areas, because one was originally a cable provider monopoly, and one was originally a telephone co monopoly. Technology advanced; monopoly arrangements didn't.
There are two somewhat equitable solutions to this mess:
- deregulate telcos and have a federal law superseding all local and state laws, so that anyone can dig up streets and alleys to run fiber; OR
- bite the bullet and accept net neutrality, because if we don't, the internet is going to become balkanized.
The problem is that the first option is even worse than the second. Nobody in government has seriously proposed it, because doing so would be political suicide. Local governments hate it because they have nice cozy relationships with their existing monopoly-granted ISPs. Major ISPs and their lobbyists hate it because they'd actually have to start competing again at a local level. A significant number of private citizens hate it because they don't want streets or alleys torn up constantly.
-
Depends on the market. If you've got a non-competitive, natural-monopoly market like the ISP market,
There's nothing natural about the monopoly of the ISP market in America. It's been brought in by legal changes in utilities law in the 1910's, lobbied by the NCF.
There's absolutely no reason that a dense urban environment in the modern day should have a telecom monopoly. I have a choice of seven - seven!! - telecoms, why can't you have one?
-
Are they all using the same fiber/copper, or did they each run fiber/copper independently?
-
Are they all using the same fiber/copper, or did they each run fiber/copper independently?
Separate infrastructures.
Two running separate fiber lines, five using cellular internet, the prices for which are gradually falling to compete with wired internet prices.
Non-telco providers that use one of the above systems are far more than seven.
-
My initial post was made without a lot of thought and was poorly conceived. Although there are some cases where regulation makes sense, the more I think about it, ISPs are not really one of those. It's not a necessity, other options exist, and the potential for misuse of the currently proposed legislation is way too high.
I think I was mainly reacting to the supposition that business is somehow inherently more trustworthy than government, which I very much disagree with. I don't trust big corporations to do the right thing at all. I don't trust government either. Both business and government have a long history of screwing anyone they have to in order to make a buck and get more power.
-
My initial post was made without a lot of thought and was poorly conceived. Although there are some cases where regulation makes sense, the more I think about it, ISPs are not really one of those. It's not a necessity, other options exist, and the potential for misuse of the currently proposed legislation is way too high.
I think I was mainly reacting to the supposition that business is somehow inherently more trustworthy than government, which I very much disagree with. I don't trust big corporations to do the right thing at all. I don't trust government either. Both business and government have a long history of screwing anyone they have to in order to make a buck and get more power.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
We don't trust business because they are trustworthy. We trust business more than government because business cannot continue to conspire against the public without government help.
For a time, business can succeed in screwing the public. Screwing your customers is bad business, though and will come back to bite you.
For example, look at the U.S. auto market. GM will die again, and soon.
-
I mostly agree, but it's only because of government regulation that businesses can't conspire indefinitely. They don't need government help to collude. They only need government inactivity or inattention.
Screwing customers only comes back to bite a company if the customers have a choice on whether to use the company's services.
-
I mostly agree, but it's only because of government regulation that businesses can't conspire indefinitely. They don't need government help to collude. They only need government inactivity or inattention.
Screwing customers only comes back to bite a company if the customers have a choice on whether to use the company's services.
They don't need government help to collude. They need government help for the collusive arrangement to last. Without the government enforcing a monopoly/cartel, it cannot last (unless it is a natural monopoly-type situation). Someone will cheat the agreement or someone will rise up to compete.
-
I'm sorry, what does net neutrality mean to everyone here?
I always thought it meant that it prohibits ISPs from filtering out content. For example, under net neutrality, it would be illegal for Verizon FiOS to limit access to Yahoo! at 5KB/s because FiOS is in bed with Google (mythical situation, just an example).
I thought net neutrality is just a way to codify the status quo, the unfiltered, unchoked, full-speed-to-any-website intertubes we enjoy today.
-
I mostly agree, but it's only because of government regulation that businesses can't conspire indefinitely. They don't need government help to collude.
Consider bookstores.
In Israel, it costs thousands of dollars to go through all the paperwork to set up a new bookstore.
The market is almost completely monopolized by two major bookstore chains, which have millions of dollars of turnover. They can easily afford to add another store to their chain if they feel like it.
This leads to the fact that they can control - easily! - what books are sold and reach the reader. They've been known to censor books because authors criticized a chain in public.
Do you think this would be possible if it were legal for me to just rent a storefront and put up a BOOKS HERE sign?
-
They don't need government help to collude. They need government help for the collusive arrangement to last. Without the government enforcing a monopoly/cartel, it cannot last (unless it is a natural monopoly-type situation). Someone will cheat the agreement or someone will rise up to compete.
Exactly. I was referring to natural monopoly-type situations.
Consider bookstores.
In Israel, it costs thousands of dollars to go through all the paperwork to set up a new bookstore.
The market is almost completely monopolized by two major bookstore chains, which have millions of dollars of turnover. They can easily afford to add another store to their chain if they feel like it.
This leads to the fact that they can control - easily! - what books are sold and reach the reader. They've been known to censor books because authors criticized a chain in public.
Do you think this would be possible if it were legal for me to just rent a storefront and put up a BOOKS HERE sign?
Bookstores are not really a natural monopoly, which is the type of industry I was referring to.
-
Exactly. I was referring to natural monopoly-type situations.
Bookstores are not really a natural monopoly, which is the type of industry I was referring to.
Alright, but there are very few natural monopoly-type situations. Most are forced by the government.
-
Exactly. I was referring to natural monopoly-type situations.
Telecoms are not a natural monopoly.
Do you have a cable TV provider in your area? Does it use the same infrastructure cables as the phone provider? Is it the same provider?
-
I've already admitted telecoms were a bad example.
-
As someone else (was it CNY) pointed out, my understanding of the "Net Neutrality" rule was that it was establishing a quasi "common carrier" rule on ISP's, in other words, they have to treat all traffic the same. Is that now not the case?
-
As someone else (was it CNY) pointed out, my understanding of the "Net Neutrality" rule was that it was establishing a quasi "common carrier" rule on ISP's, in other words, they have to treat all traffic the same. Is that now not the case?
It is still the case: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033513990668654.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
This is the sort of thing is aims to prevent: http://www.itworld.com/legal/131220/data-shows-comcast-really-villain-netflix-case
Chris
-
I'm sorry, what does net neutrality mean to everyone here?
I always thought it meant that it prohibits ISPs from filtering out content. For example, under net neutrality, it would be illegal for Verizon FiOS to limit access to Yahoo! at 5KB/s because FiOS is in bed with Google (mythical situation, just an example).
I thought net neutrality is just a way to codify the status quo, the unfiltered, unchoked, full-speed-to-any-website intertubes we enjoy today.
On the rare occasions when a major telecom company tried to do what you describe, the market slapped them back down and forced them to abandon the practice.
Net neutrality seeks to give government control over the internet in order to prevent the telecom companies from doing what the market already prevents them from doing. Government gets shiny new powers. We get... nothing we didn't already have.
Sound like a good deal to you?
-
To top it off, aren't common carriers given government money to expand their network size and capacity, and haven't most just been sitting on their thumbs?
Or am I wrong?
-
Also, the FCC has already tried to implement net neutrality once. The courts ruled it illegal, said it was an overreach of their authority.
Ok, that's easy enough to fix, just have congress change the law to grant FCC the authority needed to enforce net neutrality.
Problem is, congress consistently votes down any such changes to the law. It's been brought up a bunch of times over the years, but never comes anywhere close to passing. Congress has even sent the FCC chairwoman letters telling her to back off with this net neutrality stuff.
So after the courts say enforcing net neutrality is a no-no, and after congress says enforcing net neutrality is a no-no, what does the FCC do? They decide they're going to enforce net neutrality anyway.
Hooray for out of control government.
-
So will it just take another court action to say no again?
-
On the rare occasions when a major telecom company tried to do what you describe, the market slapped them back down and forced them to abandon the practice.
Net neutrality seeks to give government control over the internet in order to prevent the telecom companies from doing what the market already prevents them from doing. Government gets shiny new powers. We get... nothing we didn't already have.
There is no free market in ISPs. All of your comments about the free market are true if there's a free market, but there isn't.
This FCC rule is pissing everyone off. It's an abomination according to free marketeers, and it doesn't go far enough according to net neutrality proponents.
-
This FCC rule is pissing everyone off. It's an abomination according to free marketeers, and it doesn't go far enough according to net neutrality proponents.
I've heard it said that a good compromise leaves everyone unhappy.
I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction is to support net neutrality, from the standpoint that a) net providers are a de facto common carrier, and b) as you say, there isn't really a free market in ISPs. There may be one in the future, especially as wireless technology gets better, but for now, you're essentially limited to either a Cable provider or a phone provider. And in many areas only one of those is available. And that amounts to a monopoly.
I haven't seen anyone arguing the point from a Commerce Clause standpoint, but it's a very real factor that must be considered. Suppose Verizon got in bed with (for example) Amazon, such that Vz customers were given preferential QoS when visiting Amazon.com, versus other online retailers. Suddenly you have a legitimate interstate-commerce situation; a common carrier that is creating a commerce bias. What the right way is to handle it, I can't say, but it is an interstate-commerce issue, and that does lend legitimacy to the FCC's involvement.
-
There is no free market in ISPs. All of your comments about the free market are true if there's a free market, but there isn't.
Eh. You could say that nothing in America is a truly free market any more. "Free" markets aren't a binary, yes or now, this or that kinda thing. They're matters of degree.
With all telecoms we're dealing with a legacy of old government regulated monopolies. Many of the laws, infrastructures, and mindsets are leftover from that paradigm. Those leftovers aren't doing us any favors today, yet we still cling to them.
Beyond the scary new government powers, I can't help but think that this net neutrality nonsense is a step backwards, back towards the old government regulated monopoly paradigm.
There are other ways, better ways, to deal with the threats that net neutrality purports to defend against, ways that don't take this step backwards, and don't hand over scary new powers to FedGov. Consider instead using the FTC to implement some antitrust, fair trade, and consumer protection requirements. I bet you'd find that treating it as a trade matter would solve the same problems that net neutrality solves, only in a smarter and safer way. I bet this won't be considered, though. Too much inertia to overcome.
I've spent too much time dealing with telecom infrastructures in foreign countries. It's a completely different world out there, a completely different way of doing things. The perspective is enlightening, to say the least. This is one area where the American way is not the only way to do things, and certainly not the best way. The government regulated monopoly model is NOT the right way to handle this stuff.
-
make encryption a requirement for all net based communications, and a lot of the crap there using to drum up
fear umm support for this, just fade away. :angel:
-
I'll admit that my knee-jerk reaction is to support net neutrality, from the standpoint that a) net providers are a de facto common carrier, and b) as you say, there isn't really a free market in ISPs. There may be one in the future, especially as wireless technology gets better, but for now, you're essentially limited to either a Cable provider or a phone provider. And in many areas only one of those is available. And that amounts to a monopoly.
As mentioned, why do we keep these local monopolies? Why is the entire Houston area saddled with one over the wire cable provider?
I guess I would also say that favoring regulation because of the problems caused by other regulations just doesn't seem very logical.