Congress Unhappy With FCC's Proposed Changes To Net Neutrality 208
Presto Vivace writes with news that the FCC's suggested net neutrality rules are facing opposition in Congress. "FCC chairman Tom Wheeler took the hot seat today in an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology to testify about current issues before his agency, including net neutrality. The overriding theme of the day? Pretty much everyone who spoke hates the rule the FCC narrowly approved for consideration last week — just for different reasons." Wheeler himself made some interesting comments in response to their questions:
"[He said] the agency recognizes that Internet providers would be disrupting a 'virtuous cycle' between the demand for free-flowing information on one hand and new investment in network upgrades on the other if they started charging companies like Google for better access to consumers. What's more, he said, the FCC would have the legal authority to intervene. 'If there is something that interferes with that virtuous cycle — which I believe paid prioritization does — then we can move against it,' Wheeler said, speaking loudly and slowly. A little later, in response to a question from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Wheeler cited network equipment manufacturers who've argued that you can't create a fast lane without worsening service for some Internet users. 'That's at the heart of what you're talking about here,' Wheeler said. 'That would be commercially unreasonable under our proposal.'"
Here are instructions for how to send your comment to the FCC for those so inclined.
We can still win this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We can still win this one. (Score:5, Informative)
mods, please mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cards are stacked against us, but if enough people ask them to reclassify Internet broadband as common carriers the FCC will cave and do the right thing.
Nonsense. Since when did the "people's" views make a difference in this (and many other) issues? The fact is that broadband providers and other big Internet interests simply haven't yet ponied up enough cash. It's like Government X tooting about how they are going to dump Microsoft for some Linux distro and OpenOffice... It's usually a thinly veiled request for financial consideration.
Re:We can still win this one. (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense. Since when did the "people's" views make a difference in this (and many other) issues?
In the current political climate, it is very easy to become discouraged. Please don't let that keep you from letting your representatives know how you wish to be represented. Occasionally, it opens doors that were previously closed.
You CAN influence FCC rules, I have (Score:5, Interesting)
Your post pretty well covered the popular meme on Slashdot. In fact you really CAN influence FCC rule making, I have. I had the opportunity to observe several rounds of 2257 rule making and participating in one around. The FCC does in fact incorporate well reasoned comments into their rules. Chairman Wheeler KNOWS that the proposed rules have problems. He testified it has problems. The problem is, there's not currently a better proposal. "Pretend that they are telephone companies, call them common carriers" is the common refrain on Slashdot. Unfortunately regulating the entire year United States Internet is a little bit more complex than a headline. There's a REASON he isn't categorizing ISPs as telephone companies. If you want to participate directly, you will l need to find out what the problem is, why it doesn't work to just call them common carriers and think that's going to solve anything. What problems does that cause? It does cause real problems, that would really affect you. If you come to understand what those problems are then you can file comments and make a proposal to actually solve the problem. As I mentioned I've done the same with 2257. Actually understand the issues -understand why common carrier status is not by itself an answer and then you can propose actual solutions. The FCC does listen to actual solutions, they listened to mine. Mindlessly repeating a slogan doesn't help them come up with rules that actually work, though.
Re:You CAN influence FCC rules, I have (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comments, WHT, century-old copper vs Google Fiber (Score:5, Interesting)
Several people replied asking for more information. It's really cool that we, as a community, are wanting to engage beyond just a slogan or headline.
My main point was that in my experience the FCC does read comments and incorporate good ideas into the next round of rules. So my post was more about the FCC process than about net neutrality per se. I'm no expert on wholesale bandwidth, though I've run a SMALL hosting company for many years. I'd have to do some research myself before I'd be able to file a useful comments. There's also more to learn than can fit in a reasonable Slashdot post. That said, I can point people in the right direction to learn more. There's a lot to learn, so it will take some time.
The current proposal is informed by the existing comments. Many of the people who bothered to submit a comment to the FCC are knowledgeable about the issue and the direction that the FCC has been thinking about going. You can read comments others have made on various FCC filings here:
http://www.fcc.gov/comments [fcc.gov]
Specifically this one is relevant:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme... [fcc.gov]
Of course there are plenty of less informative comments, too, but there will be some gold in there.
Webostingtalk.com is a forum about web hosting where operators of a lot of small mom-and-pop internet companies discuss these things, as well as people involved with larger operations. There are threads on WHT discussing things in more detail, from people who actually know the difference between single-mode fiber and multimode fiber, and why one might be deployed rather than the other, and what kinds of government policies might influence such choices.
The core problem, as I understand it, is that the thousands of pages of regulations for common carriers are all designed for very mature industries, like POTS. The FCC will say "for the next 20 years, you must provide exactly this grade of service at this cost". It takes a for years to get a new grade of service or a new price approved, so you don't change things every year - more like every 10-20 years. That almost works for railroads and copper phone lines - nothing much has changed in the last 20 years (or 100 years) in the realm of copper phone service - some of the lines are about 100 years old. Do you want your ISP to be providing the same service they did in 1994? Obviously that wouldn't work.
A great example is Google fiber - that would have been all kinds of illegal under a common carrier regulatory regime. That service is GIGABIT - 50X as fast as the competition, for about the same cost as the old cable or DSL. That's exactly the kind of progress we want to promote, not outlaw.
Let's say you wrote a new set of common-carrier style regulations for internet, rather than inheriting most of the POTS bureaucracy. You may recall that for Google Fiber, Google looked for cities where the government would get out of the way and let them get the damn thing built, ASAP. If the FCC were managing ISPs the way they do phone companies, Google wouldn't (couldn't) have deployed quickly in Provo, they would have had to chose a city in Costa Rica or somewhere instead.
Again, I'm not an expert on the wholesale or retail internet market. I commented on the 2257 rules because I did have a useful combination of expertise in that area - and the FCC implemented the suggestions I and others made.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not quite accurate. Consider it from the corrupt politicians viewpoint (the majority of them) they collect bribes 'er' campaign donations from many sources, all of which have to be considered and served and none of which are likely to return in future election cycles if the politician does not win.
So balance in corruption. The politician must still win, they are pursuing more than one bribe 'er' campaign donation from many, many sources. So the more at risk you can make the politician feel with
Re:We can still win this one. (Score:4, Funny)
The cards are stacked against us, but if enough people ask them to reclassify Internet broadband as common carriers the FCC will cave and do the right thing.
That's only if "people" mean George, Abraham, Alexander, Andrew, Ulysses, and Benjamin.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed McKinley, Cleveland, Madison, Chase and Wilson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
1. Who is this "you all" which you're referring to?
2. What makes you think that "you all" want a government which is "tightly coupled to large corporations"?
also (Score:3)
send your comment to your elected officials in congress.
Sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
send your comment to your elected officials in congress.
...Along with a stack of non-sequential Ben Franklins... You just might get their attention.
The fat airbags in congress.... (Score:2)
Will do nothing but flap their lips. They cant even pass a bill they ALL agree on.
Re: (Score:3)
Since a) It takes 3/5 of the Senate to vote for cloture, and b) there are 53 Senators with the Democratic Party and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, the answer is "a group of at least 5 Republican Senators".
Re: (Score:3)
Since a) It takes 3/5 of the Senate to vote for cloture, and b) there are 53 Senators with the Democratic Party and 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats, the answer is "a group of at least 5 Republican Senators".
Technically the answer is "whichever Senator said (s)he's going to filibuster [legislation]"
In other words, the Senate would be humming along just fine with 51 votes if mostly Republican Senators didn't keep filibustering everything.
Message your congress people (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They want the free market to decide? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, if they want to play hardball, I say let the free market decide - by the companies who are against it putting their money where their mouth is.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc should announce that any company demanding a fee for preferred bandwidth on their service will no longer be supported at ALL. If, say, Comcast starts charging for premium access, imagine how fast everyone would switch to AT&T or Verizon. Make the providers tout it as a feature instead of a weakness. They are all makin
Re:They want the free market to decide? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the point of a monopoly: they control access, and so they can control how the market functions.
market force: Let customers decide. (Score:2)
I tend to favor light regulation to ensure a level playing field, or alternatively a way to ensure a large enough pool of providers that customers have choices.
I really HATE the idea of reducing the market power of the end customer. It is my opinion that the current stream-of-consciousness rulemaking from the current FCC chair has that goal in mind. As things are progressing, with large content-providers being stuck with paying priority upcharge fees for the bandwidth and connectivity that THEY ALREADY PAY
Camel's nose in the tent (Score:4, Informative)
Say there's a pesky blog that keeps posting pointed, critical commentary at NBC-Comcast or at a cause they support. If you allow prioritizing of data, shockingly, that site's traffic might receive the lowest priority possible, or intermittent blockage. The Internet is the last bastion of the free flow of ideas. That should be protected, strongly. Because if there's an opportunity to abuse the privilege of prioritizing data, in order to increase profit or stifle dissenting voices, it most assuredly will be abused.
Here is an informative 3 minute video highlighting some of the ways to abuse data prioritization. [youtube.com]
Wait, what? (Score:3)
"...you can't create a fast lane without worsening service for some Internet users. 'That's at the heart of what you're talking about here,' Wheeler said. 'That would be commercially unreasonable under our proposal.'"
This makes no sense at all. Is it just a bad summary? Waxman is citing testimony that internet fast lanes inevitably and necessarily degrade internet service for "non-premium" users, and Wheeler responds that the proposed regulation enables the FCC to prohibit that inevitable consequence of the system it creates?
"Yes, this regulation will degrade service, unavoidably. BUT! The regulation also says that we will make sure that this unavoidable consequence is prohibited, so it's all good!"
Re: (Score:2)
I as an end user pay already for a fast lane. I am not on the most basic plan, after all.
Is it being suggested that my fast lane degrading other users own bandwidth (which it surely does at peak times) is going to be prohibited? I am going to get the same bandwidth as my neighbor who has the basic plan during peak usage hours?
Careful what you wish for folks. Rarely does anyone point out that we already have fast and slow lanes and that many of us eagerly pay more for fas
Re: (Score:2)
Wheeler is (apparently) saying, given the finite bandwidth connecting Comcast and L3, that it would be prohibited for Netflix to pay Comcast to favor Netflix traffic through that pipe, if it has the effect of blocking or reducing Coca-Cola traffic.
Which is no different than my mid-tier connection having adverse effects on my neighbors low-tier connection, which it surely does during peak usage.
Would you care to try again? because right now you havent framed the argument in a way that doesnt apply to the fast lane I have purchased.
In the end I think the real problem with your argument is that its hypocritical to allow me to buy a fast lane but not allow netflix to buy a fast lane. That clearly its not fast lanes that are the problem.. its the fea
Fast Lane Fallacy (Score:2)
Why would anyone need a fast lane if the internet is working?
Video streams at a small fraction of the speed of a good internet connection.
Obvious extortion is obvious.
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Informative)
You can NOT have competition without regulation. What you have is a single monopoly.
This isn't selling 10 dollar t-shirts, it's infrastructure. How do you propose the market would solve thins? how would you want to ahve everyone who want to compete to have to dig up your yard and street?
You idea is foolish and naive at best. It flies in the face of history. There has NEVER been a similar situation that when unregulated goes well fore the consumer.
Read more history and less Fox.
TO anyone who has read the history of the markets, you statement look stupid.. no not stupid, fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you remember having to count your minutes on long distance calls, because it was so expensive? Even local calls were more expensive than they are today, without even having to account for inflation. And none of it came with free text messaging. Perhaps you ought to read a little history yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
And none of it came with free text messaging. Perhaps you ought to read a little history yourself.
I had free SMS text messaging in 1993-95, before the telcos figured out that they could charge extra for a service that basically cost them nothing after the initial installation, as it only used unused bandwidth.
Perhaps you should read a little history yourself too.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 is critically important. It is my understanding that getting land rights to put up poles and lay cable is the largest hurdle for many potential providers, to the point of making it cost prohibitive. And who is lobbying to keep it that way? The one provider already in the area. This must be fixed. I agree with you that a free-er (as opposed to completely free) market solution is the best. We just need some ground rules to ensure that competition can be made fair.
Too many people are looking to strong-arm t
Re: (Score:3)
#1 is critically important. It is my understanding that getting land rights to put up poles and lay cable is the largest hurdle for many potential providers, to the point of making it cost prohibitive. And who is lobbying to keep it that way? The one provider already in the area. This must be fixed. I agree with you that a free-er (as opposed to completely free) market solution is the best. We just need some ground rules to ensure that competition can be made fair.
Too many people are looking to strong-arm the companies with strict regulation instead of looking at the situation and providing an environment in which the free market can work. We haven't really had a chance for the free market to work, and #1 is a great example of why, so we haven't seen what the free market can do in this sector.
Let's try the less-government solution first. If that doesn't work, then we can go to the more-government later. We can ALWAYS get more government later. It's excruciatingly difficult to go the other direction.
No, you idiot, because this: http://trillastravels.files.wo... [wordpress.com]
Re: The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Poles and cables? The future is wireless. Actually, the present is wireless. Poles and cables for anything but electricity is archaic. Every time this topic comes up, it always boils down to the poles and cables. Get rid of the poles and cables and you get rid of 99% of this problem.
Then why is Google spending so much money on fiber to the home? As RF frequencies increase (since there's only so much bandwidth available at the lower frequencies - a 100Mhz channel at 900Mhz takes up relatively more spectrum than a 100Mhz channel at 10Ghz), cell sizes decrease due to lower propagation and penetration of the higher frequencies to a point where it takes a Wireless access point at every house (or possibly in every room in the house) to provide equivalent throughput to wired infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't lived or even traveled anywhere where there are mountains.
Newsflash: the world isn't flat, and radio signals have difficulty passing through hundreds (or thousands) of feet of solid rock.
There's no cell service where I live. Radio reception is fuzzy. I can barely get satellite TV due to the position of the mountains. My internet has to be DSL as Comcast will never run cable out here.
Re: The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Poles and cables? The future is wireless.
I just bought my house three years ago and wired it with cat 6. Wireless is for mobile devices, temporary connections, and people who want ease-of-install more than they want reliability or speed. I do this for a living; dropped connections cost me and my clients money. Wireless will probably not be the right answer for my workstations in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying "less is more". Or do you think 2.5k pages of Affordable Care Act + 10k pages of follow-on regulatory suppository is a Good Time?
Is this homeopathic economics?
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:4, Insightful)
Any ideas to get that competition thing going?
Personally, I support making the actual last mile wiring a public utility. Let ISPs share them.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I support making the actual last mile wiring a public utility. Let ISPs share them.
That is the wrong way to do it. The right way is to install a 6" wide publicly owned conduit. That is enough for thousands of fibers. Then let any bonded company pull fiber through it. The government should own the roads, not the trucks.
Re: (Score:2)
That would limit the competition to the huge players we already know and hate. Fiber gets expensive if you try to wire a metro area. It took the promise of a monopoly to get the first cable run normally, because otherwise, getting a return on the investment was in doubt.
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, regulation?
Re: (Score:2)
most of the regulation we need is on state and cities not on the ISPs themselves. The issue is that the local governments are interfering with the ability of ISPs to run cable. The result is that only large ISPs can run cable. Which means that the only ISPs running cable to your door are large ISPs. Those ISPs generally enjoy regional monopolies and therefore do not compete. And it is that lack of competition that allows this situation to occur.
So yes... regulation... but not on the ISPs. Government must be
Re: (Score:3)
Can the "small" I
Re: (Score:2)
As to how many ISPs per pole... The poles obviously have their rated limits. However, as more ISPs use the same pole the ability to upgrade the pole to something that takes a bigger load increases.
So I see no reason to limit them at all. If ten or twenty ISPs are on the same pole then there shouldn't be any need for an upgrade. The poles can certainly handle that load. Now if hundreds wanted to use the same pole we might have to go with a tunnel, pipe, or a bigger pole. Either way, if you had hundreds going
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as you admit that you are using government regulation to suppress competition we agree.
your argument seems to be that we have to prevent competition because you don't want a lot of wires on the pole.
Fine. Admit that.
Then own the consequences of your decision.
I would much rather have that rat's nest then gift one company with a monopoly or appoint some giant government body to run it for me.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that if we had that many ISPs operating in one area we could bury the cable
Re: (Score:2)
Don't insult.
I know what we can do. Perhaps we can call them Common Carriers, and force the big ISPs to rent lines to smaller ISPs. It worked incredibly well in the old days... More regulation on ISPs, we get more competition, and we KNOW IT WORKS.
Oh yeah, that's what we've been saying all along. Take your Less Governemnt ideology to somolia where it belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
Its something but its not enough.
The small carriers need to be able to lay their own cable or everyone is restricted to whatever the big ISPs provided. If the big isps are doing a bad job then everyone suffers for it.
Let the small operators compete at every level and the big operators will have to actually work to maintain their subscriber base.
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Riddle me this... do you want the US postal service to run your internet?
People tend to hate comcast more then the Post Office, so... yes?
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoy having no progress of innovation on the internet ever again then...
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because ISPs are just blowing us away with "innovation" now.
The only place "innovation" has happened in the US TeleCom industry in the last decade has been in the legal and billing departments.
I'll take the USPS over Comcast (Score:5, Insightful)
Riddle me this... do you want the US postal service to run your internet?
To be honest the post office has been stellar in terms of last-mile delivery. In fact, UPS and FedEx rely on USPS for many hard-to-reach delivery spots. USPS has relatively low rates for postage, and price increases have been incredibly low over time.
Compared to Comcast who has every incentive to screw me over repeatedly every year in order to get more profits and blame companies like Netflix/Hulu for poor performance, I'll take the USPS. Even if it means slower rates.
Re:I'll take the USPS over Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
USPS has not received any subsidy from the US government since 1982.
Re:I'll take the USPS over Comcast (Score:5, Informative)
http://deliveringforamerica.com/infographic-the-truth-about-postal-finances/ [deliveringforamerica.com]
as of 2006, the USPS has been required to pre-finance retiree benefits for the next 75 years. The govt as a whole uses the USPS as a profit center, while making it look like the USPS is in debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what, end the ability for the USPS to borrow from the US government, require that it funds itself entirely with its own resources, and make it impossible for it to be bailed out by the US government...
And I think you'll find that most of the restrictions on their finances go away.
The issue with them is that many believe they have decided to run up debt, default, and then the US government bails them out to the tune of whatever the bill is... As a way of subverting budget limits etc.
So... put our mi
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the laws, they were not required to pre-finance for 75 year, the 75 years is what is required by the government for calcuating future needs it is for ACCOUNTING purposes only, no money has to saved based on this. The 75 years is used by other governent organizations ranging from IRS, DoD, HUD, CIA, FBI
THe post office was required to start pre-funding for the expect life after retiring which is around 20 years. And the reason for that is that th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've done nothing to refute my position. Therefore my position remains.
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You really -are- stupid, that higher up post was not an anomaly. I'm sure a lot of people just passed over your comment with a sigh, but I'm going to do you a favor.
First, you seem to think that the US Postal service is somehow inept or inefficient, but you are wrong. NO ONE at the top floor of ANY competitor of the USPS agrees with you. Get some facts without page-view seeking bullshit, or Corporate Propaganda here:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.... [rooseveltinstitute.org]
Second, you seem to think laws that prevent low-budget startups from ripping through our sidewalks are -ARCANE-. You better stay the hell outta my town.
Third, the last mile is absolutely pulbic infrastructure just like water and electricity (do you want the post office to bring you power?) , and Tacoma Click! is a perfect example of this done right. More than a dozen ISP's to pick from.
Finally, you are trying to find ideological solutions to technical problems and that means ALL OF YOUR IDEAS ARE STUPID. Wake up to the fact that you have manipulated into the world view you hold.
Re: (Score:3)
Yay, finally somebody responding intelligently to this John Galt idiot.
The idea that it is the inability to add new wires, and only due to regulations and not the cost, is what is stopping competion is so obviously blindingly wrong. He is just trying desperately to keep up his fantasy that the invisible hand always works with a ridiculous plea that somehow it is the eeeeevil gvmnt!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who, over the past 20 years, has designed outside plant for literally every single major ISP in the country, his ideas are hilarious. It's like a plumber watching House M.D. & then telling a neurosurgeon that he could do it better. "They can just upgrade the poles!" "They can just bury everything they can't put on a pole!" "Who care about that gas line & power cable!"
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... I ordered something by 2 day mail and it was shipped via USPS. It was shipped Thursday of last week. It's still not here. This is not uncommon. FedEx and UPS don't seem to have these problems.
I know, I know - anecdotal, one person - but it's is annoying to have people scream that USPS is the pinnacle of efficiency when 2 day shipping regularly turns into 4 and 5 days.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you explain the municipal ISPs (where they managed to get past the raft of lawsuits from ISPs) that are several times faster AND cheaper.
But if they go with actual fiber, the capabilities are for the most part dictated by the equipment at either end.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I need to explain them? Their existence argues for my solution more then any other.
The point is that competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
If you want a local ISP to be run by your city or town, I have NO problem with that. Just don't forbid competition or force people to belong or pay for your service.
If your service is good then by out competing your rivals you will thrive.
If your service sucks or is expensive then people will drop it.
That is all I want. The ability to fire bad providers and hire
Re: (Score:2)
Just so long as you know those municipal ISPs were made up of those government union people. And since they built out because the other telecoms refused to, they had no active competition (but didn't forbid it).
Re: (Score:2)
They were built using tax money as a loan, as voted for by the people in a democratic referendum (IIRC).
Re: (Score:2)
Because fiber is hard? A pure fiber last mile with CWDM works without letting the muni's get into speeds protocols etc. Is it a lot of glass sure but it's a one time thing fiber from 40 years ago still works.
Re: (Score:2)
Riddle me this... do you want the US postal service to run your internet?
The answer would be yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... have fun with .5 megabits forever.
Re: (Score:3)
I do. The postal service is awesome. They're so awesome that we all take them for granted. That's how GOOD they are. They're fast, cheap, ubiquitous, and they get the job done. Better? They mosty fund themselves. The postal service is AMAZING, and they do a damn good job.
Better, I'd be happy with neighborhoods being able to get fat fiber, and spreading from there. Cooperatives ran by neighborhoods would be fine with me.
Don't put down the Postal Service. They've done a great job for a LONG time, in the f
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're actually irrelevant. I'm not sure if that's their fault but technology has generally made them irrelevant.
As to the merits of the postal system, they only have what they have because they have a government fiat. Why is it that people like you are always happy with government fiats but suddenly have a problem when a corporation has one?
What is the difference in your mind?
Why not just give me total dictatorial control over the internet. Personally.
What do you honestly think the difference is bet
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The internet should not fall under their purview. The FCC can regulate radio... we need something for that. We don't need them regulating the internet at all.
What we need are market forces. Competition. If the big ISPs had some they couldn't play games without threatening their market share.
That is how you regulate them. By letting customers vote with their feet.
What we need are market forces. Competition. If the big ISPs had some they couldn't play games without threatening their market share.
What competition? Even Google is being blocked from laying fibre. When cities have tried to break the stranglehold themselves the big ISPs tied it up in court until the attempt died.
Market forces dont work when mafia-like cartels can operate with impunity to protect their monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the government, there would be NO last mile cable. They're the ones who use "eminent domain" to stop the crotchety old man on the corner from refusing to sell access at any price, and forcing homeowners to perpetually suffer ugly PVC pipes to stick out of their front lawns.
The government is already involved at this level. All they have to do is call that "last mile" a public utility rather than handing off monopolies to whoever gives them the best blowjob.
Re: (Score:2)
Right because if I say regulations need to be limited it means i really am advocating total anarchy with no government at all...
Which is MORONIC as if I suggested that because you wanted increased regulations that you wanted a police state.
Do you want a police state or was your argument stupid?
Pick one. Either it is valid to suggest you want a police state or it was foolish argument that you should apologize for making.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, the lack of reading comprehension on the internet.
I just pointed out that YOU made that argument. I was myself not saying that an extreme was inevitable.
About a dozen times in this discussion when I've said we should have looser regulations, people have accused me of advocating anarchy. That is a fallacy. I have done no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering you can't even keep track of the posts and posters you're responding to (I didn't say anything about anarchy or police states, e.g.), much less avoid the most elementary logical flaws, you probably shouldn't be calling people moronic...
Re: (Score:2)
Yea right, you can keep believing that.
You really have no concept of reality, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
I cite a fact that contradicts your argument and you say I have a problem with reality?
Illogical and stupid.
You lose by default.
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/ [ytmnd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What was that, Anonymous Coward? An empty and worthless insult without basis? thank you for your contribution to this discussion... everyone appreciates your utter lack of value.
Re: (Score:2)
>Competition
Here in Concord NH, that Tea Potty Paradise, there is a duopoly
Expensive broadband that tops out at 15Mbps but with a company that sort-of caters to the consumer (no caps, no filtering of torrents, etc) - Fairpoint - a Verizon spinoff that was saddled with debt.
Or....
Comcast, a company that is mind-blowingly bad to deal with, has caps, will filter your torrents/other traffic, but has higher speeds.
Neither of which are really any good.
Competition? Where the fuck is it?
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
The internet should not fall under their purview. The FCC can regulate radio... we need something for that. We don't need them regulating the internet at all.
What we need are market forces. Competition. If the big ISPs had some they couldn't play games without threatening their market share.
That is how you regulate them. By letting customers vote with their feet.
Are you a shill or just plain stupid? The result of letting the internet do it's own thing is exactly what is the problem. They're trying to create a two tier internet and slow down people who don't pay a premium for acceptable service.
And how is it exactly we're supposed to vote with our feet when there's like 2 internet providers (in a lot of cases just 1) available to any one location?
Re: (Score:2)
And how is it exactly we're supposed to vote with our feet when there's like 2 internet providers (in a lot of cases just 1) available to any one location?
You can get DirecTV!
Re: (Score:3)
this is the internet you fool
you get netflix and steal the rest
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:4, Insightful)
Even all but the most insane Libertarians understand that some regulation is necessary to prevent bad outcomes. I once heard a speech by Ron Paul, of all people, defend environmental regulations on the grounds that one doesn't have the right to pollute their neighbor's air or water.
Network neutrality is that sort of regulation.
There do exist other sort of "gotcha" regulations like HIPAA that are so detailed as to be nothing more than a paperwork minefield designed to crank the costs of compliance through the roof for smaller players, while adding maybe the paperclip budget to the cost of the bigger ones, while generally serving little to no real-world purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What you need is the gov't to come along as say "Hey our nation's telecommunications infrastructure is critical to the nation's security, so we're nationalizing it," and then they take it away from the telcos and sell access back to them. Job done.
Re: (Score:2)
I gather that would go down just as well as nationalising the healthcare system in the US would - people would scream "socialism", lawsuits would spring up faster than a teenage boy band taking viagra gets erections, and the whole thing would be bogged down for decades.
And arguably, good healthcare is far more important than internet access...
Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score:5, Informative)
There's basically a few ways to handle this.
One: Let the companies do what they want. That will be an utter nightmare for consumers, and due to the growing necessity of the internet and all it's related data services, it would totally screw all of the populace of this country. Dumbest choice possible.
Two: Regulate the companies properly. Let's face it, they are really providing a necessary utility these days, just like power and water. Make them toe the line. The companies would hate this, but they get to stay in the game.
Three: Since it is a utility that the corporations have already shown they can't be trusted to manage, have it become ran by the government. Although the government isn't the most efficient organization, they also aren't trying to suck every last cent out of your cash anemic self as they don't have a profit motive. Expansion and improvement are likely to be slow, but then again, the corporations were already given massive bonuses in tax exemptions or write offs and many other ways by the government, and they still haven't delivered the very things they agreed to as a requirement for receiving that aid. For that matter, they've demanded several more times the previous largesses just to do what they were already supposed to have done. Looks like the government won't do any worse for the consumer than the companies are already screwing up.
What's the right choice? I couldn't really say, but the status quo of #1 has already proven it's a failure, so it at least is NOT the right choice. For the other two, I guess it really depends on how it's done.
The concept of "Natural Monopoly" (Score:3)
"Natural Monopolies" are an economic concept. [investopedia.com] These are industries in which the barriers to entry are so high that new competitors are blocked from entering. Infrastructure is commonly cited - power lines, power stations, the last mile infrastructure. The same goes for most infrastructure - telephone lines, cable lines, oil and gas pipelines, railroads.
So, there's no way to let customers vote with their feet in natural monopolies. There are no competitors. Hence the need for regulation to avoid the prob
Re: (Score:2)
Except for that isn't what stops them.
Why can't I start my own ISP? Let say I live in NYC... a high density area and there is a trunk line near where I live that I could tap into.
Why can't I literally run cable from an office to one apartment building and offer that building my service?
The wiring isn't a big deal.
Yes, wiring a whole country is beyond the means of a small business, but small businesses typically serve a small area. Your local sandwich shop isn't feeding the whole country. They feed a couple
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah! Like in the old days before regulation, when railroads were free and people could vote with their dollar! Oh wait, that turned out REALLY BADLY.
You sir, are repeated a mantra, an idealogy, which sounds good on paper and absolutely sucks when it hits the real world. The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is invisible, because it is a fairy tale. I repeat myself: Great Idea, Doesn't Exist In The Real World. The ISPs are GIGANTIC. The Free Market is dead. Taking away regulation would let them get WORSE.
Re: (Score:2)
Explain why the government should do that.
By your same logic, the government could mow your lawn as well or paint your house. But I wouldn't hire them to do either.
Just because the government might be able to do something does not mean they should.
To the contrary, government should only do what they MUST do... if we put government in charge of everything they COULD do then they could chew your food for you as well.
I would just assume not have that happen though.
Explain why the government MUST do this... not
Re: (Score:3)
Because it would allow competion, stupid.
Just like your fantasy that somehow the it is ok for every competitor to add a new wire running to every house in the city, and that somehow the cost to them of doing this is zero.
Except it would work. The startup would only have to connect to the shared end of the fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't explain why government must do it.
Very well, explain why government shouldn't paint your house or mow your lawn then?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am as much in favor of net neutrality as anyone, but I totally disagree with this decision.
It would completely stifle creativity - one of the big reasons you have the great content on cable TV is because those "data line owners" (like Comcast, Time Warner, Verison, AT&T, DirecTV, etc) have invested a lot of money in the independent cable channels. Which makes sense - it's in their interest to encourage content that is only available with a premium monthly fee on their service. The future of TV cont