Net Neutrality

[ERD50]

... Why not have a regulation require metering so that those who only consume a little pay little and those who consume a lot pay a lot? Call it net fairness rather than net neutrality.

"Interesting" how you change the goal posts mid-discussion.

I'm fine with what you just wrote, but that is not mutually exclusive to NN.

We can have metering by the GB so that low volume/speed users pay less, and "all bits served the same speed, regardless of source".

Conflating the two only serves to obfuscate the issue.

-ERD50

 

[meierlde]

Here's an old example. A small phone company/ISP in North Carolina decided that if you wanted home phone service you could only buy it from them. To enforce such a decision they blocked Vonage VoIP customers from getting their home phone services using their internet connection.

Phone Company Settles in Blocking of Internet Calls

Since cell service is also available, I would call this the telephone company involved cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Let's not lose sight of this: Net neutrality proponents are demanding special treatment for video streaming from home

On what do you base this statement? This sounds like the exact opposite of NN; NN proponents are requesting NO special treatment for anything - video streaming should be treated no differently than any other type of data.

 

[bUU]

Conflating the two only serves to obfuscate the issue.

Nonsense. The two together support each other and each makes the other more acceptable.

 

[ChiliPepr]

Since cell service is also available, I would call this the telephone company involved cutting off their nose to spite their face.

who is talking about cell service? this is talking about home phone service.

 

[bUU]

who is talking about cell service? this is talking about home phone service.

The commodity is telecommunications service. Cell versus landline is just a difference in delivery mechanism. An individual consumer may have a preference but it doesn't constitute a substantive difference vis a vis the matters we've been discussing in this thread, i.e., justification for net neutrality and such.

That's the same reason that effective competition was declared, first in individual communities and then blanket nationwide, for subscription video services, solely on the basis of the availability of satellite service, and without regard to any specific viewer's ability to receive satellite signals: The commodity was subscription video service, not specifically cable television, even though some consumers were upset about that fact.

 

[meierlde]

who is talking about cell service? this is talking about home phone service.

Functionally they are the same thing, you even see a lot of small businesses cutting the cord now and going to cell service. In particular you get voice mail with cell which costs extra with a land line. In addition domestic long distance charges don't exist only per minute charges which are the same if you call the next room or across the country.
So my answer is that landlines and cellphones are functionally the same thing.

 

[gerntz]

Federal law says otherwise - when the business is a monopoly.

-ERD50

The monopoly exists only because the locals chose to give it to them. That doesn't make it a Fed issue.

 

[gerntz]

I'm not a fan of government regulation either. But I do want my government to take steps to protect me from companies with monopoly power. However, I feel that in most cases, the best way to do this is to foster competition. If they do that, the free market can work better.

And that doesn't mean the streets need to be dug up for each new company. There are several solutions to that.

-ERD50

I'm all for more competition. But NN doesn't "deliver" that for isps.

 

[gerntz]

A little guy can get startup funding to pay for the small number of coders, servers, etc. it takes to get an idea off the ground. There's no way he's going to get funding to build his own network, with lines running to every home.

The day he starts up - of course not. In the long run? Depends on how good the idea is.

 

[bUU]

The monopoly exists only because the locals chose to give it to them. That doesn't make it a Fed issue.

Localities cannot, and do not, grant monopolies. They grant franchises. They choose between competitors in a competitive marketplace. Even in the case where exclusive franchises are granted, there is still effective competition since there are still alternatives, albeit less attractive ones. A friend of my spouse was posting on Facebook recently about his experience with private line service.

 

[explanade]

ISPs claim net neutrality would impact their capital investments to expand bandwidth infrastructure, that they have to be able to get certain ROIs or else they'd be less likely to expend capital to continually improve bandwidth.

So they want to be able to increase revenues from existing customer base, which means things like paid prioritization.

Only problem is that for all the investments they tout, the US fares poorly among OECD nations for bandwidth and prices.

All or most EU nations have on average more bandwidth and lower prices, with greater regulations, including NN, for their consumers, compared to US consumers.

FCC has tended to favor incumbent ISPs under Republican administrations, particularly in the 2000s when FCC chairman Michael Powell argued that monopolies need to be protected in order to motivate them to make capital investments to improve the broadband infrastructure, so he cut off competition for the last mile, denying politics like local loop unbundling.

At the same time, EU, Japan and Asian nations like South Korea promoted policies to increase competition and we have the results -- much higher bandwidth at lower prices.

Regulatory capture needs to be considered in all questions involving telecommunications and net issues.

 

[explanade]

Ril

Localities cannot, and do not, grant monopolies. They grant franchises. They choose between competitors in a competitive marketplace. Even in the case where exclusive franchises are granted, there is still effective competition since there are still alternatives, albeit less attractive ones. A friend of my spouse was posting on Facebook recently about his experience with private line service.

The way cable TV franchise monopolies developed, they didn't choose the best options on the merits.

Small cities were ill-equipped to evaluate "the best" nor was that necessarily their criterium.

They cut deals with cable TV operators, pure and simple. Some city politicians probably got contributions.

They didn't care about getting the best infrastructure either. With the advent of broadband, many communities found that the incumbent were disinterested in making investments to increase bandwidth capacity.

So some built their own infrastructure and ran their own ISPs. Only then would incumbents upgrade their networks.

Then they wet to state legislators to pass laws to prevent cities from building their own networks or competing with cable and telecom companies.

Then when Wheeler started looking at NN and things like those state laws barring cities from running ISPs, the telecoms and cable companies went to the members of Congress that they bought off to attack the FCC.

Then the WH changed hands and now the chairman was a former employee of Verizon who will no doubt be rewarded with a cushy industry gig, just like Michael Powell has been.

 

[bUU]

Only problem is that for all the investments they tout, the US fares poorly among OECD nations for bandwidth and prices. All or most EU nations have on average more bandwidth and lower prices, with greater regulations, including NN, for their consumers, compared to US consumers.

You're not comparing apples-to-apples. To do that, you'd have to factor in subsidization. Prior to 2010 there wasn't much, but since then EU nations, especially, have poured billions into state aid for broadband, from less than a half billion euro in 2009 to over six billion euro in 2012 (and I'm sure it's gone up from there). It is amazing how things can change in a country when the country decides to take a whole bunch of money from citizens and put it into offering citizens something better.

So it isn't just regulation. It is regulation and subsidization - together.

The way cable TV franchise monopolies developed, they didn't choose the best options on the merits.

You missed the point. They chose between competitors in a competitive marketplace. The fact that you personally don't like the criteria they used doesn't matter - if anything, it places on you a question as to why you haven't dropped what you're doing to get involved in government to bring about the changes in priorities that you'd like to see.

Small cities were ill-equipped to evaluate "the best" nor was that necessarily their criterium.

Nonsense. Stop presuming that adherence to your personal preferences is "the best". They had other priorities, including matters you'd be quick to disparage and disrespect. Big deal. I'm sure they'd be just as quick to disparage your perspective if you voiced your disparagement of theirs to their faces. Again, the point is that they chose between competitors in a competitive marketplace.

So some built their own infrastructure and ran their own ISPs. Only then would incumbents upgrade their networks.

And that's what should happen: If citizens want better than the free market provides, for luxuries and other non-essentials, then let citizens put their money where their mouths are. These matters, where the focus of society is diverted from what's really important to these comparatively trivial matters, are one reason why so many really important matters aren't getting addressed. And in this case, what is the difference between having government pay for it and having those who want these luxuries and other non-essentials deal with it themselves?

Then the WH changed hands and now the chairman was a former employee of Verizon who will no doubt be rewarded with a cushy industry gig, just like Michael Powell has been.

This is what the nation wanted, isn't it?

 

[explanade]

You selectively quote, as if the points about state laws barring cities from building networks aren't germane to the question of regulatory capture.

And you accuse me of "personal preferences" like you're only stating facts?

And where is this proof of subsidization? As if US granting limited number of players in each market isn't a de facto subsidy.

 

[bUU]

You selectively quote, as if the points about state laws barring cities from building networks aren't germane to the question of regulatory capture.

They're certainly irrelevant to the specific points I'm making - otherwise I would include such comments in what I quote. Quoting the entirety of every post that came before your own, when you're only posting a reply to a small part of them, is ridiculous and counter-productive.

And you accuse me of "personal preferences" like you're only stating facts?

Talking about "the best" not being "necessarily their criterion" is a reflection of your personal preference. I'm stunned you cannot admit that. Talking about franchising authorities granting franchises instead of monopolies, and about them choosing between competitors in a competitive marketplace, is a reflection of facts - facts you haven't even tried to refute. By contrast, I haven't attempted to claim my comments about what's more important (basic Internet service) is anything but an opinion.

I label opinions opinions and facts facts. How about you? Don't get upset because the facts I'm sharing seem to contradict the opinions you like. Keep in mind: You're unhappy with how things are. I am, as well, but I am not the one complaining about it. Your complaints reflect a lack of integration of the facts of the matter. That's why I have been trying to provide you those facts. Again: I'm not happy either, but I realize that it is nonsensical to complain because the facts don't support the complaints... it just supports the unhappiness.

It's very possible for things to be unsatisfying without anyone doing anything wrong to bring that about.

And where is this proof of subsidization?

Did you do any research before questioning it?

As if US granting limited number of players in each market isn't a de facto subsidy.

It isn't. The definition of subsidy is, "a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive." Again, we have a fact versus opinion issue: The fact is that the US doesn't subsidize broadband (and some EU nations do), based on the reality and the actual meaning of English words, and only a self-ratifying opinion, which relies on using words in a manner inconsistent with their definitions, would claim that the US does subsidize broadband (or for that matter, that the EU doesn't).

 

[explanade]

Here's a specific example of city politicians taking kickbacks in exchange for the award of the cable TV franchise agreement:

Panici and Gliottoni also are indicted on charges of taking bribes from an unidentified lawyer who was a local shareholder in a cable-television franchise.



According to the indictment, Panici met with Gliottoni and LoBue while the cable contract was under study. Panici is alleged to have told the two

``there would be money in it`` for them if they didn`t object to the lawyer, identified in the indictment as ``Attorney A,`` obtaining the cable franchise.

Panici then explained that the three of them could either take a secret part ownership in the local affiliate or receive a payoff upfront of $50,000 each, the indictment says. Gliottoni and LoBue allegedly opted for the quick payoff.

On May 11, 1981, the City Council granted a 15-year cable-TV franchise to Tele-Communications Inc. of Denver.

On Oct. 23, 1981, Attorney A cashed a check for $73,526 at a coin shop in Bremen, Ind., that deals in gold coins.

On dates unknown, Panici gave LoBue gold coins, cash and municipal bonds valued at about $35,000 and told him it all came from Attorney A, the indictment says.

The government also charges that Gliottoni received property valued at about $35,000 from Attorney A.

Robert Thomson, a TCI senior vice president, said Friday that the government has told the company it is not a target of the investigation. TCI brought its concerns about the Chicago Heights franchise to the attention of the FBI in 1985 and voluntarily helped investigators several times since then, Thomson said.

City Government Gone Awry - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Here's a recent overview of the noncompetitive state of broadband:

Whether the agency is actually able to make any changes is dubious. Beyond those state laws, many cities throughout the country have specific, individualized noncompete agreements with telecom giants like Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and the other major players that further tie the community's hands. And there's likely nothing the FCC can do to preempt those. With sweet kickbacks from cable companies and cheap or free internet service to government buildings, it's not even clear that those cities even want to change the status quo.

Those agreements are entered into bilaterally—local politicians know what they're getting into when they sign one. But often, these franchise agreements can last for more than a decade, so politicians are locked in for several election cycles. Even if a new city administration has a change of heart—or simply wants to offer its residents another, better option—they're locked down for years at a time.

The ones getting screwed are the consumers, who are contractually faced with few, limited options.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-by-predatory-internet-deals-with-big-telecom

So no, the cities weren't looking for the best deal for their residents, it was often whose palms were being greased.

That's a lot more than personal opinion.

 

[bUU]

That's a lot more than personal opinion.

That wasn't one of the personal opinions of yours that you were upset that I was highlighting. It also isn't something that my facts we contradicting. Would you like to try again?

 

[explanade]

No you're not going to be convinced by facts.

 

[bUU]

Try posting some facts with regard to the matters that I've raised.

 

[MichaelB]

Let's remember to keep it friendly and polite.

 

[jimbee]

I'm all for more competition. But NN doesn't "deliver" that for isps.

That wasn't the intent. You can read about the FCC rule here. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

 

[Chuckanut]

Let's not lose sight of this: Net neutrality proponents are demanding special treatment for video streaming from home before securing affordable access for every child to be able to do basic text-based research on the Internet from home.

As a former teacher I can assure everybody that 'doing it for the children' can be used to justify all sorts of things - some ethical and good, some greedy and self-centered. And, by the way, who decides what is the 'good' for the children?

IMHO, the video streaming issue is a straw man. I just don't want some monopolistic or duopolistic providers deciding for me that the Fudgie Wudgie Dance Music channel is more important than the Salad Dressings Made Simple channel.

 

[sengsational]

If Netfix and the like we're not making so much money from "the ISPs customers", this would be a non issue. The ISPs want more of the juice. Cable companies were used to getting all the money. Over $100 a month was common for content. Now they're trying to find a way to get some of those Netflix bucks as more people cut the cord.

 

[gerntz]

If Netfix and the like we're not making so much money from "the ISPs customers", this would be a non issue. The ISPs want more of the juice. Cable companies were used to getting all the money. Over $100 a month was common for content. Now they're trying to find a way to get some of those Netflix bucks as more people cut the cord.

Well if people cut the cord, then why do they still want the isp provider who also provides the cord? seems they want their cake & eat it too.