RIP Net Neutrality

[BrotherBart]

What is irritating me is that here we are being pressured/forced to move from Verizon wireline to their FIOS fiber net. So our phone service become unregulated VOIP. My copper phone service and DSL are just fine thank you very much. Price increases have to be approved by the state corporation commission. The minute I am on their fiber net I am wide open to what ever they want to charge for it.

Oh, and they want me to pay an activation fee and equipment fee for them cutting off my copper service, to save them money, and doubling my phone and Internet bill.

 

[Ashful]

I agree with you, Bro... but I think that's a separate issue from the one at hand. The net neutrality issue is about allowing large corporations to pay for preferred packet handling, something that already happens at the protocol level (eg. streaming packets preferred over email), but now they're allowing it to happen on a per-customer basis (eg. Google can pay to have their traffic preferred over Yahoo). It's about ensuring some providers have faster perceived performance, than their competition.

 

[BEConklin]

I'd say it's about monopolies......

I'd also say it's not about allowing companies to pay for preferred access as much as it's about allowing companies to charge more for preferred access. It seems to me there's nothing now to stop these corporations: they can own both the content and the infrastructure needed to deliver that content to the consumer - AND they can restrict their competitor's access to that infrastructure.

To me - that's a perfect setup for a monopoly - pure and simple.

Not long ago, we used to frown on them in this country - and for damned good reasons I'd say.

 

[DBNH22]

What is irritating me is that here we are being pressured/forced to move from Verizon wireline to their FIOS fiber net. So our phone service become unregulated VOIP. My copper phone service and DSL are just fine thank you very much. Price increases have to be approved by the state corporation commission. The minute I am on their fiber net I am wide open to what ever they want to charge for it.

Oh, and they want me to pay an activation fee and equipment fee for them cutting off my copper service, to save them money, and doubling my phone and Internet bill.

That's kind of like how the cell carriers are not selling basic phones anymore that you can get without a data plan. Everything now is a smartphone that costs at least a $100 with the contract and you need to buy a data plan that's usually at least $30 a month, whether you want it or not. I was speaking to a Verizon Wireless rep once and asked him about this and he said that all the customers want the smartphones and data plans these days. He was just some guy answering calls so I wasn't going to get into it about what a load of horse poop that was and what the real reasons are.

The bottom line is that you can count on the government and corporations to do what is in their best interest and not in the interest of the public 100% of the time. The double whammy is that they're in bed together.

On the subject of internet things though. Here's a little money saving tip for some of you that may not be aware of it. Many cable/broadband companies charge you a monthly fee for the use of their equipment (routers/modems.) the fee is small, usually only around $8-9 but you can often look on Craigslist and find these items for cheap money, like under $30. If you buy your own you can return the ISP's unit and start saving money. I bought a cable modem that works with my Comcast cable internet service a few years ago and have saved in the hundreds now.

 

[begreen]

I agree with you, Bro... but I think that's a separate issue from the one at hand. The net neutrality issue is about allowing large corporations to pay for preferred packet handling, something that already happens at the protocol level (eg. streaming packets preferred over email), but now they're allowing it to happen on a per-customer basis (eg. Google can pay to have their traffic preferred over Yahoo). It's about ensuring some providers have faster perceived performance, than their competition.

The two issues go hand in glove and are being forced by the same companies. Get 'em hooked and then reel them in. This is happening on a grand scale, the internet is just their latest cherry to pick. In this country we are developing a tradition of helping the wealthy get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer and homeowner.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

and folks think im crazy to own a kindle with not a single book downloaded (i play mahjong on it and that's about it)

I like to read off paper, call me old fashioned, maybe im socially conscious paper books require more workers I suspect to mass produce. I just prefer paper, heck I have books on my shelves that are over 200 years old and yeah, I have read them

 

[Wildo]

You're not going to win the "war." No sense in losing every battle along the way, as well.

Wow that's sad.

 

[TMonter]

The FCC has been complicit selling off airwave neutrality and fairness rules since the Regan administration. Under Powell the FCC removed constraints on media market domination. And these are just a couple of the bullet points on the FCC selling out.

How many of you love the OTA changes from VHF TV to digital? That change has effectively cut off reception to a lot of rural America. And now they want two paths into every home. One slick and speedy and one prone to dropouts and slow service. Not so great for mom and dad trying to manage their healthcare or social security or for millions of others dealing with banking, shopping, research, school papers, etc.. The net has grown because it has been open and equal to all. Now a few corporations want to capitalize on that, not for social gain, but to please their shareholders. The net should be regulated like other public utilities so that they best serve the public and social justice.

Here's a reminder list of FCC sellouts, each one a systematic step toward insuring an oligarchy gets the pie every time.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html

Considering that the internet developed without much input from the FCC and has been expanding rapidly, the whole whining about net neutrality doesn't mean much.

The whole idea of net neutrality was bogus to begin with and a coverup of the actual problem which was government induced barriers to competition.

 

[TMonter]

The two issues go hand in glove and are being forced by the same companies. Get 'em hooked and then reel them in. This is happening on a grand scale, the internet is just their latest cherry to pick. In this country we are developing a tradition of helping the wealthy get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer and homeowner.

You asked for big government begreen, what did you expect would happen? What makes you think government people are any less corrupt than business people? At least without government interference in the market, companies have to compete for business.

 

[Ashful]

You asked for big government begreen, what did you expect would happen? What makes you think government people are any less corrupt than business people? At least without government interference in the market, companies have to compete for business.

Here, I'll fix it:

In this country we are [the government is] developing a tradition of helping the wealthy [politicians] get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer [business owner] and homeowner.

 

[begreen]

Same point. Everyone should take a moment to watch this brief essay, then share with friends.

 

[Grisu]

In this country we are [the government is] developing a tradition of helping the wealthy [politicians] get wealthier and socializing the costs (and debts) on the taxpayer [business owner] and homeowner.

Which is exactly why we lost net neutrality. Now the big companies with the spare capital can purchase higher internet speeds which will give them a competitive advantage. The losers are the small startups that cannot afford preferred treatment. The same can be said for private households where the rich have now better access to resources than the rest.

 

[BrotherBart]

If this happens we will probably have to double the annual membership fee for hearth.com to afford bandwidth.

 

[begreen]

Head of the FCC is now saying he may have read the tea leaves wrong. Having Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. get in his face seems to have helped. We'll see. A new proposal comes on Thurs. I think.

Showing up on DC streets:

 

[TMonter]

Which is exactly why we lost net neutrality. Now the big companies with the spare capital can purchase higher internet speeds which will give them a competitive advantage. The losers are the small startups that cannot afford preferred treatment. The same can be said for private households where the rich have now better access to resources than the rest.

Chicken and egg. You push for government regulation which creates high cost of entry into markets and then complain when it stifles competition? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

The problem is the government regulation and the solution is not even more regulation, which is what the whole net neutrality push is.

 

[Jags]

Lets see what you think when your ISP re-routes (or completely blocks) your traffic to IHateGovernment.com to Socialism.com.

Then imagine if you only have one choice of ISP (which is reported to be about 30% of the country). Maybe they slow Grover Norquist youtube videos to an absolute crawl...Buffering...

Pay the gatekeeper. And it is all manufactured. Not supply and demand.

 

[TMonter]

Lets see what you think when your ISP re-routes (or completely blocks) your traffic to IHateGovernment.com to Socialism.com.

Then imagine if you only have one choice of ISP (which is reported to be about 30% of the country). Maybe they slow Grover Norquist youtube videos to an absolute crawl...Buffering...

Pay the gatekeeper. And it is all manufactured. Not supply and demand.

And when they start doing that Jags, there will be more push and demand for competition that does not do it. That is the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so. Additionally the availability of multiple ISP's will drive down the price of access.

When you claim 30% of the country only has access to one ISP, is that 30% by land mass or 30% by population? Does that include cellular carriers?(I would bet it doesn't)

 

[Jags]

I don't have a verifiable source for the 30%. It is a number I have seen thrown around the net, so I don't know the methodology.

I would just as soon not wait for 5 -10 or whatever years it takes for competition to show up on a white horse (even assuming that it will in rural areas) because of a manufactured problem. And it IS manufactured. Nothing more than a new revenue stream for the handful of backbone ISPs. Follow the money, T. This isn't free market, this is collusion. They will all do it. Why not, its now legal. Your belief that lower cost competition is going to race into the market is not based on reality. Who is gonna put up a grass roots billion dollar infrastructure WITHOUT using the same market tools (net neutrality) to their advantage? Ain't gonna happen.

 

[TMonter]

I don't have a verifiable source for the 30%. It is a number I have seen thrown around the net, so I don't know the methodology.

I would just as soon not wait for 5 -10 or whatever years it takes for competition to show up on a white horse (even assuming that it will in rural areas) because of a manufactured problem. And it IS manufactured. Nothing more than a new revenue stream for the handful of backbone ISPs. Follow the money, T. This isn't free market, this is collusion. They will all do it. Why not, its now legal. Your belief that lower cost competition is going to race into the market is not based on reality. Who is gonna put up a grass roots billion dollar infrastructure WITHOUT using the same market tools (net neutrality) to their advantage? Ain't gonna happen.

Actually is is based on reality Jags, this is shown across multiple markets and multiple economic sectors. When there is competition, prices are lower and service is better.

Actually it is free market, not collusion. In fact there are several developing ISP's in many areas and many companies are willing to put money into developing more infrastructure. Your claim that they aren't is simply not true. Google is in fact a prime example:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/story/2012-08-14/google-fiber/57059702/1

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240181168/Google-rolls-out-super-fast-broadband-to-Austin-Texas

Additionally, your claim that you don't want to give time for competition to develop is because of a government manufactured problem in most cases.

You simply don't like the fact that companies should be allowed to use the infrastructure they built as they see fit. You haven't made a single reasonable, logical argument here Jags. Your claims reside on simple appeals to authority and emotion.

Want a real solution? Kill off all the pointless regulations that prevent competition.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...l-protectionist-laws-written-duopolists.shtml

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

 

[Jags]

We'll that does explain why I have so many options outside of OTA tv. Wait a minute.

Get it straight, T. The FCC was the ones that protected we the people from predatory actions by the backbone ISPs. Not so, anymore.

This is all probably moot anyhow. I suspect that the service will soon be treated as phones and electric. Then it will fall back into FCC control.

 

[TMonter]

We'll that does explain why I have so many options outside of OTA tv. Wait a minute.

Get it straight, T. The FCC was the ones that protected we the people from predatory actions by the backbone ISPs. Not so, anymore.

This is all probably moot anyhow. I suspect that the service will soon be treated as phones and electric. Then it will fall back into FCC control.

Which would be a disaster just like phones and electric. Have you seen the current status of the telephone and power industries and infrastructure?

You're making a lot of claims here Jags but as I said, you using the appeal to emotion and authority fallacies without looking at the facts.

Now you're claiming "predatory actions" by backbone companies when you have provided no evidence to support that assertion. If you want to have an actual discussion about the merits of net neutrality, how about use some facts for a change instead of rhetoric.

 

[BrotherBart]

I saw how that open Internet competition worked out. And ended up. In 1999.

The facts involving the five tier one nets will be available all too soon now T.

 

[Jags]

Now you're claiming "predatory actions" by backbone companies when you have provided no evidence to support that assertion.

Its been illegal up till now, T. This is new territory. All I can state is what they have as a "new found" ability to do, and most likely what they WILL do with this new "freedom".

I know it probably is the equivalent of driving a stake into your heart, but the FCC was keeping a fair playing ground for all. Now, with enough cash, you can buy your way to the top. I can only assume that this is exactly what you want based off of your arguments.
When Google and Amazon and Microsoft own the net, then what?? How about Soros or the Koch bros? If this is your idea of the net going forwards in the name of "free market" - shame on you. And corporations are people too.

 

[Ashful]

Tmonter: I agree with most of your ideals, particularly "the great thing about capitalism, when a company displeases customers, someone always inevitably steps in an fills the void provided regulations do not prevent them from doing so." However, you're not really getting anywhere with this argument. This is a crowd very clearly sold on the idea that more government involvement is the fix for most problems.

 

[Jags]

This is a crowd very clearly sold on the idea that more government involvement is the fix for most problems.

No - I am nowhere near sold on that idea. I think we have huge government bloat that needs to be addressed. I also believe that there needs to be rules, regulations and laws that allow for fair competition. Its the only reason that Microsoft (as one example) didn't buy up the computer world. Nobody likes it when corps and mega wealthy got a free pass on opening their checkbooks for political reasons. And trust me - nobody is gonna like big checkbooks buying up the internet either.