Jump to content


End of Net Neutrality


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Problem is states can't override the FCC rules, same as when states attempt to override interstate commerce rules. If Congress doesn't restore Net Neutrality and these state laws get struck down, then we're going to see a lot more municipal broadband. And that's going to be fun to watch the ISP's cry about losing business to government/community-provide internet.

 

So much for the GOP mantra about State's Rights.

  • Plus1 5
Link to comment

3 hours ago, VectorVictor said:

Burger King made a great video about Net Neutrality by equating it to speed and availability of fast food service:

 

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16927890/burger-king-net-neutrality-ad

 

 

The analogy isn't perfect, but it's pretty close. And it still explains why Net Neutrality is not only necessary, but what can/will happen eventually if it's not reinstated. 

The best part is the mug sip at the end. It's almost like a smooth subtweet at Pai.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment

This is tech related and in directly related to the topic

The Trump admin is considering the option of the govt building the 5G network vs having private enterprise (AT&T, Verizon, etc) doing it.

Why, to beat China and to make it more secure.  The admin likens it to the Eisenhower Interstate System directive of the 1950s.

So, this would be gov't take over of a significant sector of the economy.   Considerations:

1.  Do republican law makers resist as they did wt Obama care?

2.  Do Democratic law makers resist because this could be a personal liberty issue - govt control of a vital sector that would have all of our personal data?

3.  Is this primarily a security issue which 'trumps' (no pun intended) all other considerations - a greater good argument?

4. Or is this too much like the Patriot Act - an overstep on behalf of a reasonable concern (security)?

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html

 

 

 

Quote

 

Trump national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation’s mobile network to guard against China, according to sensitive documents obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: We’ve got our hands on a PowerPoint deck and a memo — both produced by a senior National Security Council official — which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in the Trump administration.

 

The main points: The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide 5G network within three years. There'll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration — and an outcry from the industry — over the next 6-8 months over how such a network is built and paid for. 

Two options laid out by the documents:

  1. The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network — which would be an unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure.
  2. An alternative plan where wireless providers build their own 5G networks that compete with one another — though the document says the downside is it could take longer and cost more. It argues that one of the “pros” of that plan is that it would cause “less commercial disruption” to the wireless industry than the government building a network.

Between the lines: A source familiar with the documents' drafting says Option 2 is really no option at all: a single centralized network is what's required to protect America against China and other bad actors.

  • The source said the internal White House debate will be over whether the U.S. government owns and builds the network or whether the carriers bind together in a consortium to build the network, an idea that would require them to put aside their business models to serve the country's greater good.

Why it matters: Option 1 would lead to federal control of a part of the economy that today is largely controlled by private wireless providers. In the memo, the Trump administration likens it to "the 21st century equivalent of the Eisenhower National Highway System" and says it would create a “new paradigm” for the wireless industry by the end of Trump's current term.

  • But, but, but: The proposal to nationalize a 5G network also only covers one part of the airwaves; there’d be other spaces where private companies could build.

The PowerPoint presentation says that the U.S. has to build superfast 5G wireless technology quickly because “China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure,” and “China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain.” To illustrate the current state of U.S. wireless networks, the PowerPoint uses a picture of a medieval walled city, compared to a future represented by a photo of lower Manhattan.

The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. (A source familiar with the document's drafting told Axios this is an "old" draft and a newer version is neutral about whether the U.S. government should build and own it.) 

  • It's a marked shift from the current system where those companies each build their own systems with their own equipment, and with airwaves leased from the federal government.
  • Nationwide standard: the federal government would also, according to the memo, be able to use the banner of national security to create a federal process for installing the wireless equipment, preventing states and cities from having their own rules for where the equipment could go.

The bigger picture: The memo argues that a strong 5G network is needed in order to create a secure pathway for emerging technologies like self-driving cars and virtual reality — and to combat Chinese threats to America’s economic and cyber security. A PowerPoint slide says the play is the digital counter to China’s One Belt One Road Initiative meant to spread its influence beyond its borders. The documents also fret about China's dominance of Artificial Intelligence, and use that as part of the rationale for this unprecedented proposal.

  • There’s even a suggestion that America’s work on a secure 5G network could be exported to emerging markets to protect democratic allies against China.
  • “Eventually,” the memo says, “this effort could help inoculate developing countries against Chinese neo-colonial behavior.”

AI arms race: The memo says China is slowly winning the AI “algorithm battles,” and that “not building the network puts us at a permanent disadvantage to China in the information domain.” There is a real debate to be had over China and AI, but it’s unclear what at all that has to do with a mobile network.

Reality check: The U.S. wireless industry is already working on deploying 5G networks, with AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, for example, investing heavily in this area. The process for setting 5G standards is well underway. Korea has been at the forefront of testing, as have Japan and others. It's not clear a national strategy would yield a 5G network faster or by the memo’s 3-year goal.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

I think we should collectively own the monopoly distribution channels like power distribution, internet, cell towers, etc., but I am concerned about government abuse of holding the information channels. But it's not like the ISPs and cell companies wouldn't selling your personal info at the drop of a hat if they thought it's get them an extra couple pennies.

Link to comment

Thanks for sharing that article about the 5G wireless. There's a lot there to think about.

 

Would the general public really trust the government to not use this for bulk surveillance? The very first thing that comes to mind is that the government owning the towers makes it trivial to monitor all the traffic. Not that they aren't already doing it but at least when the networks are owned by an outside party it 'feels' like there is some privacy.

 

How does this in any way line up with the idea of small government? It's the exact opposite.

 

Somewhat unrelated to this article but I think this is a step towards outlawing VPNs, certainly for personal use. The easy argument for them to make is that if we're using a 'secure' network then why do you need a VPN? The guise of national security will be used to trick the uninformed to giving up their right to privacy while online.

 

 

I wish I were better putting my thoughts to words....there's just so much here.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

I would rather see the Fed Govt empower industry to create a secure 5G network than owning it themselves (govt).  If this is a huge security issue, then do what we did in WW2 - empower and incentivize industry to take the lead.  Not only industry but higher ed.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I would rather see the Fed Govt empower industry to create a secure 5G network than owning it themselves (govt).  If this is a huge security issue, then do what we did in WW2 - empower and incentivize industry to take the lead.  Not only industry but higher ed.  

BINGO!!!!

 

I am wholeheartedly against the government building the system and owning it 100%.  What happens is it gets built...sort of.....over a  long period of time.  Then, the service is given to the citizens way below any actual cost of the system, only to have the entire system fall behind in technology and maintenance.

 

I am for the government working with industry to get it built and even funding part of it.  But, it's up to private industry to maintain it.  This is similar to our electricity grid or land line telephone system.

 

If the government does the entire thing themselves and owns it, it ends up costing way more than it needs to.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

BINGO!!!!

 

I am wholeheartedly against the government building the system and owning it 100%.  What happens is it gets built...sort of.....over a  long period of time.  Then, the service is given to the citizens way below any actual cost of the system, only to have the entire system fall behind in technology and maintenance.

 

I am for the government working with industry to get it built and even funding part of it.  But, it's up to private industry to maintain it.  This is similar to our electricity grid or land line telephone system.

 

If the government does the entire thing themselves and owns it, it ends up costing way more than it needs to.

I know that this is a popular thought among economic conservatives, but do you have evidence to back up these claims? Looking at other distribution monopolies, especially roads, government does a WAY better job than private industry. (I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that I've heard similar talking points for privatizing other things that haven't turned out to be that good.)

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I know that this is a popular thought among economic conservatives, but do you have evidence to back up these claims? Looking at other distribution monopolies, especially roads, government does a WAY better job than private industry. (I'm not even saying you're wrong, just that I've heard similar talking points for privatizing other things that haven't turned out to be that good.)

Can I bring up 5 links to studies?  no.  

 

Roads are pretty much a low technology infrastructure.  And....if you believe many people, our roads and bridges are falling apart and need drastic upgrades.  

 

Look at our telecommunications grid.  The government worked with private industry to get it installed with the goal to provide everyone in America access.  Even someone clear out in the middle of the sandhills has a telephone.  Private industry has maintained it and created better and newer technology as it was needed.

 

It will be very interesting to see how ultra conservative Republicans get behind Trump on this initiative.  I agree with someone above, this is no less of an industry takeover by government than the ACA was.

Link to comment

32 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Can I bring up 5 links to studies?  no.  

 

Roads are pretty much a low technology infrastructure.  And....if you believe many people, our roads and bridges are falling apart and need drastic upgrades.  

 

Look at our telecommunications grid.  The government worked with private industry to get it installed with the goal to provide everyone in America access.  Even someone clear out in the middle of the sandhills has a telephone.  Private industry has maintained it and created better and newer technology as it was needed.

 

It will be very interesting to see how ultra conservative Republicans get behind Trump on this initiative.  I agree with someone above, this is no less of an industry takeover by government than the ACA was.

And now those telecommunications companies own a monopoly on the cables that provide telecomms to everyone's home, which has led to pricing and service issues. (EDIT: and net neutrality issues) Look at the least popular companies and those with the worst customer service - they tend to be monopolies like Comcast, AT&T, Century Link. My contention is that's worse than if the government or the local community owned it. Same for power companies because they own the power cables going to everyone's home.

 

As for roads, the US has a LOT of infrastructure that needs to be rebuild, but that's because we've failed to spend the money to maintain it the last few decades. The government has the ability to use government issued bonds to finance the roads and spread that cost over a large number of people and over a large amount of time. If a private/toll road did the same thing, they'd simply abandon the road (e.g. declare bankruptcy) and let the government deal with it anyway.

Edited by RedDenver
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

And now those telecommunications companies own a monopoly on the cables that provide telecomms to everyone's home, which has led to pricing and service issues. (EDIT: and net neutrality issues) Look at the least popular companies and those with the worst customer service - they tend to be monopolies like Comcast, AT&T, Century Link. My contention is that's worse than if the government or the local community owned it. Same for power companies because they own the power cables going to everyone's home.

 

I don't agree....but, that's fine....we all have opinions.

 

4 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

As for roads, the US has a LOT of infrastructure that needs to be rebuild, but that's because we've failed to spend the money to maintain it the last few decades.

You basically just made my point.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

You basically just made my point.

You'd have to show that private/toll roads would be better to make your point. I'll happily agree that government/community ownership isn't some kind of utopia without problems.

 

When I have more time, I'll try to find examples of public vs private ownership of things like telecomms, roads, etc so we have at least some evidence/data to discuss.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

You'd have to show that private/toll roads would be better to make your point. I'll happily agree that government/community ownership isn't some kind of utopia without problems.

 

When I have more time, I'll try to find examples of public vs private ownership of things like telecomms, roads, etc so we have at least some evidence/data to discuss.

No....we can just agree to disagree.

 

My point is with your roads comment.  They get built then end up in budgetary squabbles for eternity until they get so bad they actually can't be used anymore.

 

At least with private industry, there's a profit motive to keep everything updated with new technology.  But....I'm one who doesn't think profit is a bad word.

 

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No....we can just agree to disagree.

 

My point is with your roads comment.  They get built then end up in budgetary squabbles for eternity until they get so bad they actually can't be used anymore.

 

At least with private industry, there's a profit motive to keep everything updated with new technology.  But....I'm one who doesn't think profit is a bad word.

 

 

I don't think profit is a bad word either, so...

 

As for the roads, we can agree to disagree, and that's fine, but you haven't really made the point that private roads are better - only that there's issues with public roads. And I agree that budgetary squabbles are a big reason against public ownership.

 

And private industry has no profit motive to keep improving technology. If they've got a product/service/resource that's a monopoly, then they'd exploit that to maximize profits. And only spend money on improvements if they had to, which usually happens given sufficient competition, but I'm specifically talking about monopolies or near-monopolies where there's little to no competition.

Edited by RedDenver
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...