Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Net Neutrality

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:15:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
First off, is this the third topic I've created with this title since I joined?

Second:
http://www.pcworld.com...

U.S. lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier utility, a move many net neutrality advocates have called for.

The bill, introduced late Wednesday by Representative Bob Latta, an Ohio Republican, would block the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier telecom service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Earlier this month, the FCC released a proposal to restore net neutrality rules and asked for public comment on whether to reclassify broadband instead of taking an approach advocated by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that would allow broadband providers to engage in "commercially reasonable" traffic management.

Reclassifying broadband would hurt the Internet economy, Latta said in a statement. "At a time when the Internet economy is thriving and driving robust productivity and economic growth, it is reckless to suggest, let alone adopt, policies that threaten its success," he said. "Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the mercy of a government agency."

The legislation would give all Internet businesses the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services, Latta added

I honestly didn't think our government had it in them to actually be this stupid, but I guess our friends in the Republican Party never fail to impress, do they?

This seems to be another product of people following their ideology off of a cliff. It seems very clear at this point that Republicans are opposed to anything with the word "regulation" in it at this point, regardless of the individual merits of said regulations. In this case, they are allowing ISPs to destroy any chance of a free market existing on the Internet.

Just to put this into perspective for people who haven't researched this issue: Say that Netflix is competing with Comcast's video-on-demand service. If the FCC's new proposals go through, Comcast will be able to put their own services on priority, and have Netflix pay them for higher priority (where Comcast's own service could still have higher priority, if that is what Comcast wanted). In fact, nothing would forbid them from putting every other service on a higher priority than Netflix, thereby slowing down streaming on Netflix to a crawl. This would force Comcast customers to use Comcast's video service instead of a service that they would like more, simply because Comcast has ultimate control over what packets get what priority on their network. Because of this, Netflix is at the mercy of its competitors, since its competitors also own the lines which both services depend on to get to their customers. Considering how a vast majority of major ISPs also happen to sell their own video services, this is something to be concerned about. Cable companies could simply put Netflix on low priority and not offer to take their money, forcing their customers to use their cable TV service. And since one third of Americans only have one choice of wireline ISP, this will not end well for them (and no, Internet video services will not work well on anything but a wireline ISP, I can explain this if you ask me). ISPs already have virtually no competition when it comes to actually providing Internet service. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to pave the competition-free way for these ISPs as they expand towards providing other services.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 8:50:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:15:22 AM, drhead wrote:
First off, is this the third topic I've created with this title since I joined?

Second:
http://www.pcworld.com...

U.S. lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier utility, a move many net neutrality advocates have called for.

The bill, introduced late Wednesday by Representative Bob Latta, an Ohio Republican, would block the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier telecom service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Earlier this month, the FCC released a proposal to restore net neutrality rules and asked for public comment on whether to reclassify broadband instead of taking an approach advocated by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that would allow broadband providers to engage in "commercially reasonable" traffic management.

Reclassifying broadband would hurt the Internet economy, Latta said in a statement. "At a time when the Internet economy is thriving and driving robust productivity and economic growth, it is reckless to suggest, let alone adopt, policies that threaten its success," he said. "Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the mercy of a government agency."

The legislation would give all Internet businesses the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services, Latta added

I honestly didn't think our government had it in them to actually be this stupid, but I guess our friends in the Republican Party never fail to impress, do they?
So broadband = internet?
Doesn't this regulation FORCE utilities to offer this, in areas where they otherwise normally wouldn't (i.e. rural Midwest)?


This seems to be another product of people following their ideology off of a cliff. It seems very clear at this point that Republicans are opposed to anything with the word "regulation" in it at this point, regardless of the individual merits of said regulations. In this case, they are allowing ISPs to destroy any chance of a free market existing on the Internet.

Free market does not exist in the internet, as utilities are often given a monopoly.


Just to put this into perspective for people who haven't researched this issue: Say that Netflix is competing with Comcast's video-on-demand service. If the FCC's new proposals go through, Comcast will be able to put their own services on priority, and have Netflix pay them for higher priority (where Comcast's own service could still have higher priority, if that is what Comcast wanted). In fact, nothing would forbid them from putting every other service on a higher priority than Netflix, thereby slowing down streaming on Netflix to a crawl. This would force Comcast customers to use Comcast's video service instead of a service that they would like more, simply because Comcast has ultimate control over what packets get what priority on their network. Because of this, Netflix is at the mercy of its competitors, since its competitors also own the lines which both services depend on to get to their customers. Considering how a vast majority of major ISPs also happen to sell their own video services, this is something to be concerned about. Cable companies could simply put Netflix on low priority and not offer to take their money, forcing their customers to use their cable TV service. And since one third of Americans only have one choice of wireline ISP, this will not end well for them (and no, Internet video services will not work well on anything but a wireline ISP, I can explain this if you ask me). ISPs already have virtually no competition when it comes to actually providing Internet service. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to pave the competition-free way for these ISPs as they expand towards providing other services.

First, if you could explain how websites are given less priority on networks, I'd appreciate that. It doesn't make sense to me.
Second, if there is zero competition, then wouldn't the angry customers warrant new businesses and engage in a free-er market of ISPs?
I could be wrong, but it looks like you say the ISP market is both zero competitor AND free market. It can't be both, especially if government is likely running cover. (How many fiber lines do you want under your street?)
Third, isn't the issue in charging separately for broadband?
Tell me, why do I need to pay for 25 MPS download speeds, when I really only need about 3? Who is benefiting? Not me.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:53:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 8:50:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:15:22 AM, drhead wrote:
First off, is this the third topic I've created with this title since I joined?

Second:
http://www.pcworld.com...

U.S. lawmaker has introduced legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier utility, a move many net neutrality advocates have called for.

The bill, introduced late Wednesday by Representative Bob Latta, an Ohio Republican, would block the FCC from reclassifying broadband as a common-carrier telecom service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Earlier this month, the FCC released a proposal to restore net neutrality rules and asked for public comment on whether to reclassify broadband instead of taking an approach advocated by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that would allow broadband providers to engage in "commercially reasonable" traffic management.

Reclassifying broadband would hurt the Internet economy, Latta said in a statement. "At a time when the Internet economy is thriving and driving robust productivity and economic growth, it is reckless to suggest, let alone adopt, policies that threaten its success," he said. "Reclassification would heap 80 years of regulatory baggage on broadband providers, restricting their flexibility to innovate and placing them at the mercy of a government agency."

The legislation would give all Internet businesses the certainty they need to continue investing in broadband networks and services, Latta added

I honestly didn't think our government had it in them to actually be this stupid, but I guess our friends in the Republican Party never fail to impress, do they?
So broadband = internet?
Doesn't this regulation FORCE utilities to offer this, in areas where they otherwise normally wouldn't (i.e. rural Midwest)?


This seems to be another product of people following their ideology off of a cliff. It seems very clear at this point that Republicans are opposed to anything with the word "regulation" in it at this point, regardless of the individual merits of said regulations. In this case, they are allowing ISPs to destroy any chance of a free market existing on the Internet.

Free market does not exist in the internet, as utilities are often given a monopoly.


Just to put this into perspective for people who haven't researched this issue: Say that Netflix is competing with Comcast's video-on-demand service. If the FCC's new proposals go through, Comcast will be able to put their own services on priority, and have Netflix pay them for higher priority (where Comcast's own service could still have higher priority, if that is what Comcast wanted). In fact, nothing would forbid them from putting every other service on a higher priority than Netflix, thereby slowing down streaming on Netflix to a crawl. This would force Comcast customers to use Comcast's video service instead of a service that they would like more, simply because Comcast has ultimate control over what packets get what priority on their network. Because of this, Netflix is at the mercy of its competitors, since its competitors also own the lines which both services depend on to get to their customers. Considering how a vast majority of major ISPs also happen to sell their own video services, this is something to be concerned about. Cable companies could simply put Netflix on low priority and not offer to take their money, forcing their customers to use their cable TV service. And since one third of Americans only have one choice of wireline ISP, this will not end well for them (and no, Internet video services will not work well on anything but a wireline ISP, I can explain this if you ask me). ISPs already have virtually no competition when it comes to actually providing Internet service. There is absolutely no reason why we should have to pave the competition-free way for these ISPs as they expand towards providing other services.

First, if you could explain how websites are given less priority on networks, I'd appreciate that. It doesn't make sense to me.
Second, if there is zero competition, then wouldn't the angry customers warrant new businesses and engage in a free-er market of ISPs?
I could be wrong, but it looks like you say the ISP market is both zero competitor AND free market. It can't be both, especially if government is likely running cover. (How many fiber lines do you want under your street?)
Third, isn't the issue in charging separately for broadband?
Tell me, why do I need to pay for 25 MPS download speeds, when I really only need about 3? Who is benefiting? Not me.

Because supplying a demand for exceptionally motivated people is as dirty a concept as regulation.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:55:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:53:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

Because supplying a demand for exceptionally motivated people is as dirty a concept as regulation.
Not sure what you mean by this, nor what question of mine you are addressing, nor you position on the topic.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,246
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 9:59:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:55:42 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 9:53:19 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

Because supplying a demand for exceptionally motivated people is as dirty a concept as regulation.
Not sure what you mean by this, nor what question of mine you are addressing, nor you position on the topic.

I'm sorry I wasn't specifically addressing you. I just resent this idea that government should control all natural or man made resources, and then arbitrarily distribute them equally, when all people naturally have vastly different needs and wants.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:57:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:59:48 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

I'm sorry I wasn't specifically addressing you. I just resent this idea that government should control all natural or man made resources, and then arbitrarily distribute them equally, when all people naturally have vastly different needs and wants.

Do you have an issue with government allowing a monopoly for, say, natural gas, in an area? Should there be five natural gas pipelines running cross country and/or in each residential neighborhood, so I may have a choice?
My work here is, finally, done.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 8:50:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So broadband = internet?

Broadband is more or less required for most modern applications. Yes, there is (somehow) still dial-up, which is slow; satellite, which usually has 800+ ping and intermittent service on anything but a clear day; and mobile broadband, which so far no company has offered a package usable for home computers in the way the Internet is used today (because of very low data caps). In other words, there are really no other viable options other than wireline broadband.

Doesn't this regulation FORCE utilities to offer this, in areas where they otherwise normally wouldn't (i.e. rural Midwest)?

As far as I know, no. It only prevents them from discriminating against certain content.

This seems to be another product of people following their ideology off of a cliff. It seems very clear at this point that Republicans are opposed to anything with the word "regulation" in it at this point, regardless of the individual merits of said regulations. In this case, they are allowing ISPs to destroy any chance of a free market existing on the Internet.

Free market does not exist in the internet, as utilities are often given a monopoly.

I'm referring to the market of services within the Internet -- in other words, everything lying beyond the ISP. Here, I am saying that the ISPs have a position as gatekeeper for this market, and are likely to abuse that position since they own services within that market. It is not a true free market, but it is closer than anything else ever seen, and it is in our best interest to keep it free from interference by the ISPs.

First, if you could explain how websites are given less priority on networks, I'd appreciate that. It doesn't make sense to me.

First, you must understand that ISPs have been rather slack when it comes to upgrading their networks lately. Level 3 wrote a blog post about this a while back (which I recommend reading in full):

http://blog.level3.com...

This one deals more specifically with interconnection agreements, and is most relevant to the issue at hand:

http://blog.level3.com...

ISPs have many ports where there network is interconnected with a tier 1 provider (like Level 3, for example), which connects them to the rest of the Internet. When one of these ports gets congested (which happens as traffic on the Internet increases or moves around), it is standard procedure to upgrade the capacity and the cost is usually split or alternated (which doesn't cost much, most network engineers I've heard have said that adding an additional "lane" costs about $25,000 and takes maybe two weeks). However, some ISPs are refusing to upgrade their networks. Considering how it isn't really that expensive, it seems as if they are deliberately harming the service. I would trust Level 3 on this since, as an ISP for ISPs, they would know how much this would cost.

So now, we've got a bunch of congested ports that are dropping packets randomly. However, with prioritization, these ports can be told to send certain data first and let other packets get dropped. Considering how the only reason this congestion exists in the first place is because of their own mismanagement of their networks, they do not need to be able to expand their gatekeeper powers, they need to upgrade their networks like they are supposed to so there isn't congestion in the first place. This has also created other issues, such as broadband data caps which we did not have years ago. The costs of sending data are only getting lower, and this behavior by ISPs is only resulting in degradation of service.

Second, if there is zero competition, then wouldn't the angry customers warrant new businesses and engage in a free-er market of ISPs?

Because starting an ISP is expensive. Not only do all of the lines have to be run to every household which you wish to serve, you have to get the right to put up those lines (which legislators will drag their feet on), you will have to fight some agreements made by existing ISPs (where they only agreed to put up infrastructure if they don't have to compete), and you will have to deal with the fact that not every household will switch to your service. If you get 50% of customers to switch (which would take luck), there will still be close twice as much infrastructure as would be needed to serve everyone in an area, resulting in services costing twice as much due to the inherent inefficiency of competing infrastructure. It's a problem on multiple levels, and this is why you only really see Google doing anything serious of this sort. I honestly believe that we would be significantly better off if ISPs were built and maintained by municipalities, where the goal would be meeting demand rather than maximizing profit.

I could be wrong, but it looks like you say the ISP market is both zero competitor AND free market. It can't be both, especially if government is likely running cover. (How many fiber lines do you want under your street?)

No, I'm saying that they are anything but free market. They essentially hold a vertical monopoly where they own video services and the means of delivering them (and in the case of Comcast, even owning part of video production itself), and where competing services on the production and service parts of the chain are forced to use their services to deliver their services.

Third, isn't the issue in charging separately for broadband?
Tell me, why do I need to pay for 25 MPS download speeds, when I really only need about 3? Who is benefiting? Not me.

Different tiers of speed would not be affected. The only thing this would affect is the congestion that should not even be there in the first place.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:17:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:15:22 AM, drhead wrote:
First off, is this the third topic I've created with this title since I joined?

Sad that nobody is willing to debate topics like these nowadays?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:05:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 9:37:20 PM, fazz wrote:
Could you link to the two other forum posts you made previous to this?

It's a bit difficult for me to do that, since I can't search my own posts. It seems like I am invading other people's threads more so than anything else, anyways:

http://www.debate.org...

This is the only one I could find that actually sparked a discussion of significant length.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:42:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a very difficult concept. But some of your arguments in the other forums break it down better/ more simplistically than you did here. Thanks for the link.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 2:40:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By the way, if anyone is interested in debating this topic, I've put up a challenge:

http://www.debate.org...

Just comment and we'll sort out the details from there.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 11:01:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a tough issue.

For me it comes down to competition and a lack of it. Where I live, I have option of AT&T DSL or Time Warner. AT&T does not have the speed I need, so I am stuck with Time Warner.

If Time Warner was allowed to regulate my data download based upon the sites I visit, I have no other viable options or competitors to switch to.

We need net neutrality and since providers can already offer different packages of download speeds by customer rather than site, they have plenty of pricing power to price on usage.

Fundamentally since this is similar to a utility situation, there is not enough competition to use the market to straighten it out.