Net Neutrality Provision Struck Down in U.S. Appeals Court

[krill]

I don't even know how to respond to your points without four paragraphs of technobabble conga. Bandwidth isn't really the issue here, as the main cost of the last mile network to customers is maintenance of the physical medium that's paid for with your base rate. That's not to say it's an infinite resource, but neither is it as limited as you are are making it out to be, and a good that truly needs to be rationed out with an elaborate fee structure.

[Conga3]

I don't even know how to respond to your points without four paragraphs of technobabble conga. Bandwidth isn't really the issue here, as the main cost of the last mile network to customers is maintenance of the physical medium that's paid for with your base rate. That's not to say it's an infinite resource, but neither is it as limited as you are are making it out to be, and a good that truly needs to be rationed out with an elaborate fee structure.

 

I think we are arguing about the definition of ISP in the CONTENT===ISP----CONSUMER model.

 

You seem to be using it more literally, while I'm referring to it as the broad mesh of networks, contracts, and services that make up the Internet - NOT including the CONTENT provider (like NetFlix) and the end user (Consumer). I know it probably looks something more like

 

CONTENT====NETWORK1====NETWORK2===NETWORK3====ISP-----CONSUMER

 

I speak of the ISP this way because they are the ones who, after all the costs from all the network contracts, etc.. will package a service and offer it to the CONSUMER that covers the costs and include the mark-up for profit.

 

Whatever sort of new fees the NETWORKS want to also charge will be to the CONTENT, another NETWORK or an ISP...and the result is those additional costs will be reflected either by higher costs for services from CONTENT or ISP.

 

Do we generally agree on this?

 

I think where we disagree is on how out of control this could get if NETWORKS in this model are also allowed to charge fees based based on being able to "discriminate" the traffic that they process.

 

The way I hear your argument is :

 

NETWORK 1 charges $++ for video streaming

NETWORK 2 charges $+ for video streaming, but also has to pay NETWORK 1, so they charge $+++ for their service.

NETWORK 3 uses NETWORK 2 and wants to charge $+ for video streaming as well, so when they sell to the ISP the cost is now $++++.

The ISP also wants to get in on the added fees for video streaming, so when they charge the consumer it's now $+++++.

 

...Illustrating how the additional fees might stack and be passed down through to the consumer directly.

 

Is this a dumbed down version of the scenario you've brought up concern for?

 

--

P.S. I like technobabble.

[krill]

It's more complicated than that, because sometimes the consumer ISP is also network 2 and / or 3 in your example.

 

 

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/innovation-web-lives-and-dies-net-neutrality

 

I strongly encourage you, and anyone else interested in the topic to read through this article. It's not only to protect Google and Netflix from potential cost of differentiated services, it's to protect the next company that wants to compete with them (Google and Netflix) from a monopoly barrier.

[Conga3]

http://www.networkwo...-net-neutrality

 

I strongly encourage you, and anyone else interested in the topic to read through this article. It's not only to protect Google and Netflix from potential cost of differentiated services, it's to protect the next company that wants to compete with them (Google and Netflix) from a monopoly barrier.

 

Thanks.

 

So if I understand the concern in that article, if networks are allowed to "sell" premium connection to the "giants", they will lose some incentive to increase overall capacity, and the resulting disparate services offered to the "haves/have nots" would hinder the "small guys" as they are left to compete with the "giants" from a lowered starting point.

 

right?

 

Does my "Some Discrimination is OK" rule outlined above that only allows discrimination based on reaching a certain threshold of usage work if we add to the rule that the discrimination must equal or less than the indiscriminated (word?) traffic?

 

So, NETWORK1 is allowed to treat Netflix traffic differently (charge fees one way or the other or throttle the throughput), but not better than "general" traffic it's not allowed to discriminate against.

 

I can't see why that won't protect the Internet from the "giants" but also allows for fees to be more proportionally levied on the users of the high broadband services.

 

Actually, my version would benefit the small guys since a start-up wouldn't be big enough to be throttled by the NETWORK, while the big guys are...giving them one element of competitive advantage from the get-go.

[krill]

I don't think your idea is terrible, but as you know, regulation very often does not keep pace with changes in the market place, and quite often because a new point for the cancer of lobbied interest to spread. So if there was to be a change as you suggest, first there would be a huge battle over the traffic percentiles (80/20 rules as you suggest), regulation for auditing, exceptions for different types of services and service providers, and all that. Pretty quick this is how companies end up spending more on regulatory compliance than what is ostensibly in the interest of business and the public. Sometimes that's necessary, sometimes it's a pointless burden. I happen to think in this case it is the latter, and not at all in the public interest.

 

And getting back to what I was saying about the wireless industry, I wasn't talking at all about the latest iPhone or whatever. It's very interesting to me that AT&T was the on the verge of buying out T-Mobile and closing in on a duopoly there as well, but the government wisely blocked it and T-Mobile has become the most disruptive force in the industry. Now, like the rest of the world, we are moving towards a more rational business model than locked devices bought on contract, and at that very moment Verizon suddenly decides to focus all their efforts on breaking network neutrality to invent a new reason to fleece consumers.

[Conga3]

I don't think your idea is terrible...

 

I'll take it whenever I can get it. Thanks!

 

---

 

I completely agree the burden of regulation must be weighed against benefits. Net-neutrality is a regulation, and is probably not even needed at all, says this guy...

 

http://www.forbes.co...s-really-about/

 

---

 

Bottomline for me is..we can always enforce net-neutrality in some form down the road if the big Internet businesses go full-retard and screw everything up. There is no need to try and enforce it now, and certainly no need to further regulate the industry in its current state.

 

It was a silly and illegal rule pushed by the Obama Admin since it was a campaign promise that narrowly was even passed at the time in 2010 (3-2) and when implemented, it admitted the rules weren't to correct any current wrongs, but rather wrongs that maybe committed in the future.

 

I support the concept of net neutrality, just not any FCC regulations that attempt to enforce it - yet.

 

Even the CEO of Netflix agrees with me.

http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/22/netflix-net-neutrality/

 

As for whether more laws are required to protect net neutrality, the letter argues that “less regulation is warranted” if Internet providers “adhere to a meaningful voluntary code of conduct,” while more regulation would be needed if they actually start “impeding specific data flows.”

[strigori]

Anti-trust laws in the telecoms is a joke. Ask guys who live in Lincoln how much they like Time Warner, and what their options are. And really, the anti-trust laws are pretty toothless as it is. Very rarely does the FTC deny a purchase or takeover in any industry that reduces competition, and it does nothing for areas that currently have no competition.

 

You don't need the Federal government to "fix" the issue of limited offerings in a small market. That is a job for city/county or state governments.

 

If Time Warner is the only broadband ISP in Lincoln (I really doubt that) that is the fault of the Lincoln or NE government...not the FTC.

 

Allowing Time Warner to charge it's customers to use Netflix (or charge Netflix behind the scenes who in turn raise prices) wouldn't all of the sudden destroy the Lincoln ISP market. It actually could bring in more service providers.

 

---

 

We also may just have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes enough "competition" to allow proper market regulation.

Incorrect. Very, very few markets have a true variety of options. Most have 1 Cable Company and 1 Phone/Telecom Company to pick from.

This is some good reading on the issue, and hopefully will change your mind a bit. And it doesnt even get to net neutrality.

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/23/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130823

 

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

 

And these are the methods they are using on old tech. Let them have carte blanche to do as they please, they will do everything they can to pillage the consumer to bolster corporate profits. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

Right now our issues are with cost and speed compared to the rest of the developed world, not the way in which data moves across the web. That is not broken, so no need to fix it. At some point the good of the nation needs to come before corporate profits.

[Conga3]

Anti-trust laws in the telecoms is a joke. Ask guys who live in Lincoln how much they like Time Warner, and what their options are. And really, the anti-trust laws are pretty toothless as it is. Very rarely does the FTC deny a purchase or takeover in any industry that reduces competition, and it does nothing for areas that currently have no competition.

 

You don't need the Federal government to "fix" the issue of limited offerings in a small market. That is a job for city/county or state governments.

 

If Time Warner is the only broadband ISP in Lincoln (I really doubt that) that is the fault of the Lincoln or NE government...not the FTC.

 

Allowing Time Warner to charge it's customers to use Netflix (or charge Netflix behind the scenes who in turn raise prices) wouldn't all of the sudden destroy the Lincoln ISP market. It actually could bring in more service providers.

 

---

 

We also may just have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes enough "competition" to allow proper market regulation.

Incorrect. Very, very few markets have a true variety of options. Most have 1 Cable Company and 1 Phone/Telecom Company to pick from.

This is some good reading on the issue, and hopefully will change your mind a bit. And it doesnt even get to net neutrality.

 

http://articles.lati...iltzik-20130823

 

http://www.wired.com...nd-competition/

 

And these are the methods they are using on old tech. Let them have carte blanche to do as they please, they will do everything they can to pillage the consumer to bolster corporate profits. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

Right now our issues are with cost and speed compared to the rest of the developed world, not the way in which data moves across the web. That is not broken, so no need to fix it. At some point the good of the nation needs to come before corporate profits.

Did you even read that article from Wired.com that you just linked? I could have linked that article in my post - that you're attempting to refute - to support my argument that the issue is not at the Federal level, but rather local and state governments. Thanks, I guess?

 

That LATimes article is full of socialist innuendo and calls for the nationalization of the Internet. No Thanks!

[strigori]

Anti-trust laws in the telecoms is a joke. Ask guys who live in Lincoln how much they like Time Warner, and what their options are. And really, the anti-trust laws are pretty toothless as it is. Very rarely does the FTC deny a purchase or takeover in any industry that reduces competition, and it does nothing for areas that currently have no competition.

 

You don't need the Federal government to "fix" the issue of limited offerings in a small market. That is a job for city/county or state governments.

 

If Time Warner is the only broadband ISP in Lincoln (I really doubt that) that is the fault of the Lincoln or NE government...not the FTC.

 

Allowing Time Warner to charge it's customers to use Netflix (or charge Netflix behind the scenes who in turn raise prices) wouldn't all of the sudden destroy the Lincoln ISP market. It actually could bring in more service providers.

 

---

 

We also may just have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes enough "competition" to allow proper market regulation.

Incorrect. Very, very few markets have a true variety of options. Most have 1 Cable Company and 1 Phone/Telecom Company to pick from.

This is some good reading on the issue, and hopefully will change your mind a bit. And it doesnt even get to net neutrality.

 

http://articles.lati...iltzik-20130823

 

http://www.wired.com...nd-competition/

 

And these are the methods they are using on old tech. Let them have carte blanche to do as they please, they will do everything they can to pillage the consumer to bolster corporate profits. Don't pretend otherwise.

 

Right now our issues are with cost and speed compared to the rest of the developed world, not the way in which data moves across the web. That is not broken, so no need to fix it. At some point the good of the nation needs to come before corporate profits.

Did you even read that article from Wired.com that you just linked? I could have linked that article in my post - that you're attempting to refute - to support my argument that the issue is not at the Federal level, but rather local and state governments. Thanks, I guess?

 

That LATimes article is full of socialist innuendo and calls for the nationalization of the Internet. No Thanks!

A singular federal law, like that which broke up Ma Bell, and allowed any company to offer long distance service would bypass local corruption.

 

Because the private sector, which we might as well rename the Greed Sector, is doing such a bang up job, keeping us in wonderful outdated tech. Third world status here we come!

 

In reality the Internet is quickly becoming a 'utility' in the way water, gas, and electricity are. And those sectors have always been better run when publicly owned. Just compare what we have in Nebraska, then take a trip to California in the summer and enjoy crazy prices and rolling brownouts. Again, not everything is about profit, and not everything is best done by the private sector. We have not sold off our roads and highways to private companies for a reason. The internet is not so different.

[Conga3]

A singular federal law, like that which broke up Ma Bell, and allowed any company to offer long distance service would bypass local corruption.

 

Because the private sector, which we might as well rename the Greed Sector, is doing such a bang up job, keeping us in wonderful outdated tech. Third world status here we come!

 

In reality the Internet is quickly becoming a 'utility' in the way water, gas, and electricity are. And those sectors have always been better run when publicly owned. Just compare what we have in Nebraska, then take a trip to California in the summer and enjoy crazy prices and rolling brownouts. Again, not everything is about profit, and not everything is best done by the private sector. We have not sold off our roads and highways to private companies for a reason. The internet is not so different.

 

The Ma Bell breakup split up a national monopoly into regional companies. Doing the same to Time Warner or Comcast wouldn't all of a sudden create cable TV competition in small markets. It'd simply create smaller regional cable companies that wouldn't be overlapping each other in any markets.

 

To achieve competition in local markets, you'd have to address each locality individually, passing local laws in cities, counties or states that open access to the cable networks in place and maintained by the incumbent cable company - allowing other cables companies to enter the market without having to run their own lines to every household by paying a fair "rent" to the incumbent to use the existing lines.

 

This is done now. Without Federal laws. It just takes competent local governments to get all the relevant local agencies together and onboard with the idea of not continuing the status-quo. Cash starved local governments see big companies that want access to the consumers in their market as giant bags of money, and proceed to demand prohibitive amounts of compensation in order for the access. If it's not profitable, they won't do it. Add to that, the incumbent service provider is probably kicking back campaign donations and the like.

 

---

 

I don't disagree the Federal government can't have a role in this. I'm a big proponent of the Federal government developing programs that provide cities or states with a optional/voluntary frameworks to go off of with resources to make it happen more efficiently.

 

I don't want the Federal government telling states or cities HOW they are to do things by passing laws, however - big difference.

 

If the Obama Admin got with their Google cronies (since they are right now experimenting with this anyway) and setup a "Fiber For America" or "Cable Competition Challenge" program, in which they created a "How-to" guide for local cities, counties and states to go about creating "markets" in their locality that would be attractive for private business - I would be ALL IN. As long as the Federal government doesn't coerce local governments into doing it 'their way" (hold back funds or whatever), I have no problem with Federal tax dollars being spent on such campaigns - so long as they aren't subsidies - , but I'm not sure our Federal government knows how to operate without corruption, kickbacks and creating a dependent citizenry...so I remain skeptical it's even possible.

 

--

 

Also, I don't think what you're suggesting is legal... I don't think the Congress can tell a city how to manage their public ways. Dunno. Don't sound right to me. Sounds a bit authoritarian.

[strigori]

The feds tell the states how to do all sorts of things. Look at Omaha's sewer separation project. Highway laws, drinking ages. And states lose a ton of power when it comes to rules about how multi-state companies operate.

 

Breaking up the companies isnt what I'm thinking, just force them to open the right of way laws to anyone who wants to use it. Which is very similar to what happened with long distance carriers.

 

And if you are in Nebraska, it a much different world than most of the rest of the country. Due to the annexation laws in Nebraska, you have more centralized power in the way of cities. Meaning you only have to deal with Omaha's city council and regulators, instead of dozens and dozens of little city councils and mayors to do anything. Which given the nature of politics means massively increased expenses and the companies there already have a monopoly and have no desire to lose it. And many of the monopolies are written into law for the cities in the way of non-compete clauses, often meaning a lawsuit in federal court to have the law struck down in order to do business. Verizon had to do this with FiOS.

 

Speaking of which, Verizon is not going to even expand its service, as Wall St punished them for investing in the tech. If we let investors have the say and control over our infrastructure, we are going to be on a fast track to backwater status when it comes to future tech. We are already so far behind Europe and Asia on what we have available for internet speeds, and cost of that service. All because of the idiotic mentality that the only thing that matters is big businesses making more money. The good of the nation comes before some greedy bastards bank accounts.

[krill]

It's a really a shame we made it this far with no mention of the master of oration on the subject, the late senator Ted Stevens.