Net Neutrality

[mh]

Nobody knows because the feared "abuses" by the ISPs was not happening prior to the net neutrality regulations.

Net neutrality was pushed through a sympathetic administration by the Googles of the world to preemptively stop the ISPs from charging them more for their high bandwidth products. In other words, "net neutrality" was a solution waiting for a problem.

In my opinion, there is no real harm in removing this regulation. If, in the future, our internet "rights" are truly suffering, a more tailored solution (for an actual problem) could easily be enacted.

Abuses were happening. For example , there were cable companies throttling Netflix streams down to levels were just crappy enough to get people annoyed at Netflix usage. When people discovered what was happening , NN became an issue. The fear was that you would want to watch the super bowl and lo and behold, it would cost you 20 dollars to get a “premium” quality of service which merely meant they would stop “hostage throttling “ your feed coming from that super bowl content provider.

 

[bUU]

And where are you getting this definition?

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

How about I define "the market" as me, the individual? Cause that's the only market I really care about.

Then you will be perennially confused about the reality of the situations that you find yourself in.

 

[gerntz]

So, if I understand you correctly, a monopoly is not a monopoly if a person can get a different vendor just by the simple act of packing up everything they own and moving their primary place of residence?

That's one way to interpret it. Another is to thankful one has an option at all. And another is to take action to create more choices.

 

[gerntz]

I don't see that at all. It's the consumers we want to protect.

So going back to the utility analogy - without Net Neutrality (however it might get enforced), we could be looking at a water company who is a business partner with a beer company, telling me I can't use any of the water I buy from them to make my own home-brew beer?

Again, we want the ISP to be the pipe, deliver us the data at the speed and quantity we are willing to pay for. But don't tell us what you will and will not deliver.



+1. Saying I can just move is way out there. Methinks gerntz has some sort of vested interest in something, and it's not the consumer.

-ERD50

I have a vested interest in governments not telling companies how to run their businesses. The governments didn't create or invest in the businesses. Consumers can make of them/use as they please.

 

[gerntz]

Of course, Netflix does have a pipe. It just doesn't go all the way to your house. Do you really want Netflix to dig up your street to lay a new pipe to your house? And then, have Google come by a few months later to do the same, etc.? And, what about the little guy in Dubuque who thinks he has a great new service that could be the next Amazon, if only he could get access to users... where is he going to get the billions (trillions?) needed to lay pipe? He's not, and so little startups are going to be crowded out by the big guys who can afford to own their own pipe or pay millions to Comcast to get access to your home.

I don't want that, I want to decide for myself whether I'll patronize the startup, or Amazon - not have Comcast decide that for me.

I'd love to have 10 different lines running to my house to chose from & a new street after they're done digging it up.

If the little guy's idea is worth a hoot he can get startup funding.

 

[gerntz]

And where are you getting this definition?

How about I define "the market" as me, the individual? Cause that's the only market I really care about.

Doesn't make any materiel difference to me if the guy across the way (city, county, state, country, planet, universe?) has access to 10 providers if I only have one. My provider has a monopoly over me.

When it's my money, it gets very real - I don't care about theoretical/hypothetical/academic definitions.

And it doesn't take a monopoly to make a problem for a consumer, a common old oligopoly will do.

-ERD50

It's your choice to accept the monopoly, but it's not your choice to tell a business how it should run itself.

 

[ERD50]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
How about I define "the market" as me, the individual? Cause that's the only market I really care about.

Then you will be perennially confused about the reality of the situations that you find yourself in.

I don't think you read that link (or assumed I wouldn't). And no, by considering what effects me directly, I avoid confusion.

As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market.

That's any market, not "the entire market".

Monopoly power could be considered if the company has more than:
"50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

I have a vested interest in governments not telling companies how to run their businesses. The governments didn't create or invest in the businesses. Consumers can make of them/use as they please.

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

 

[ERD50]

It's your choice to accept the monopoly, but it's not your choice to tell a business how it should run itself.

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

-ERD50

 

[Curmudgeon]

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/com...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined
.

Thanks for the citation; this is what I read there:

a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.​

(emphasis mine)

So, saying "there's no monopoly because you can just move to get another vendor" is clearly not a defense... that definition doesn't make sense on it's surface, and is not consistent with the FTC definition either.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I'd love to have 10 different lines running to my house to chose from & a new street after they're done digging it up.

If the little guy's idea is worth a hoot he can get startup funding.

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.

 

[oneill225]

We are from the government and we are here to help

The idea that the government should ensure equal access and cost to all services no matter where you live has real limitations. Thankfully, the free market is pretty responsive to consumer needs if there is a profit to be made.

Obviously, those living in remote/rural areas are not always a big profit center. That is why many farmers in Iowa, for example, need to drive an hour just to get to the mall. Based on some of the replies in this thread, I must assume that many think the answer to this problem is for the feds to order the mall owner to build a mall closer to each farmer.

The better view, historically, is to let the markets respond to the vast majority of our wants and needs and to only involve government mandates when there is a compelling reason for doing so. The fact that your ISP charges too much or limits your data is not very compelling, in my view. Living in the boonies comes with a price and that is one of them.

 

[Curmudgeon]

The idea that the government should ensure equal access and cost to all services no matter where you live has real limitations. []

I must assume that many think the answer to this problem is for the feds to order the mall owner to build a mall closer to each farmer.
[]
The fact that your ISP charges too much or limits your data is not very compelling, in my view.

You are conflating two different things, and mis-stating (intentionally?) the purpose of NN.

No one is trying to force ISPs to serve rural communities, nor to provide service at a reasonable rate, nor to prevent them from putting caps on data, or charging more $$ for more or faster data. None of that has ANYTHING to do with net neutrality.

To state it again: NN says that if I pay you for 1G of data, I can use the 1G for anything I want - you have no right to look at the data, and then (depending on what it is) block it, slow it down, or extort $$ from someone else to make sure it gets to me.

This is the same implied contract we have with virtually every other provider of goods and services. The electric company doesn't tell me what I can do with my power, the gas station doesn't tell me what I can do with my gas, and the grocery store doesn't tell me what I can do with my ground beef.

ISPs are in a unique situation because (1) they have a virtual monopoly, so free market forces don't seem to work well, and (2) unlike virtually any other vendor, they have the ability to determine exactly what we're using their product for, and then f*ck around with it if they so choose.

It's harmful to consumers and innovation to let ISPs have both of these powers. That's why we need NN.

 

[cooch96]

The idea that the government should ensure equal access and cost to all services no matter where you live has real limitations. Thankfully, the free market is pretty responsive to consumer needs if there is a profit to be made.

Obviously, those living in remote/rural areas are not always a big profit center. That is why many farmers in Iowa, for example, need to drive an hour just to get to the mall. Based on some of the replies in this thread, I must assume that many think the answer to this problem is for the feds to order the mall owner to build a mall closer to each farmer.

The better view, historically, is to let the markets respond to the vast majority of our wants and needs and to only involve government mandates when there is a compelling reason for doing so. The fact that your ISP charges too much or limits your data is not very compelling, in my view. Living in the boonies comes with a price and that is one of them.

+1

Also, I’m just not afraid of a monopoly internet provider. The internet is a great convenience, not a necessity. If the provider makes its service extraordinarily malignant, I’ll go to extraordinary lengths to not pay: either just using the internet at work and the library, like way back in 2007; or cutting the cord entirely. And if a significant number of customers does this, an unfettered market will respond quickly. I’d much rather take my chances of that happening than encouraging the government to stifle innovation with regulations.

 

[sengsational]

oneill225, The whole "living in the boonies" seems to be a straw-man you're trying to introduce that's not central to the net neutrality discussion. If I live in the boonies and I don't have a fast pipe to the Internet backbone, so be it. The question is, are my bits being treated differently depending on the origin of those bits.

There's still the question of how established content providers benefit based on your suggestion that net neutrality is a benefit to Google, Netflix and Amazon. We'll continue to disagree about whether laws should protect us from ISP's looking to make more money by holding certain destinations hostage, but I believe there is some horse trading when it comes to the "big pipes" on the backbone, and I want to understand how that plays into net neutrality, and why the big guys benefit and little guys don't (if that's true).

 

[Chuckanut]

Again: We may not like the definition, but that doesn't change the definition.

Monopolies are companies that are the only providers for a market, NOT the only providers for an individual.

Alas, in my very big metropolitan market, the biggest group of Internet users still is in a monopoly, the next biggest is in a duopoly. The vast majority is served by a monopoly or duopoly. I don't know of anybody who can get ISP service from at least three providers - the minimum necessary to have meaningful competition.

 

[oneill225]

There's still the question of how established content providers benefit based on your suggestion that net neutrality is a benefit to Google, Netflix and Amazon. We'll continue to disagree about whether laws should protect us from ISP's looking to make more money by holding certain destinations hostage, but I believe there is some horse trading when it comes to the "big pipes" on the backbone, and I want to understand how that plays into net neutrality, and why the big guys benefit and little guys don't (if that's true).

My issue with NN is simply that it appears to be unnecessary regulation crafted to aid large content providers in future litigation against the ISPs. It does this by giving them a government sanctioned bludgeon which proclaims that the ISPs cannot charge them differently or treat their data differently than any other content provider (keep in mind that the NN Act is actually hundreds of pages long and invokes other regulatory mandates, as well).

So if, for example, Comcast decided to charge Netflix extra for using so much of their bandwidth, Netflix could take them to court to stop it with a high likelihood of success. Please understand that I have no personal desire to see Comcast or any other ISP charge more, but I think the free market should dictate who wins this business decision, not the government.

Consumer protections will still exist on many levels regardless of NN. If, for example, Comcast was providing their own competing content at a lower cost and/or higher speed than Netflix, Netflix would have an anti-trust claim against Comcast.

In my opinion, the speculative harm to consumer interests is the real straw man, here. It is obscuring the real impetus behind this Act; an ongoing battle between large content providers and the ISPs. Before I can support another broad level of government oversight, I need to see some actual harm to the average consumer that cannot otherwise be addressed with existing laws and regulations. If you know of some, I am very open to changing my opinion.

 

[ERD50]

My issue with NN is simply that it appears to be unnecessary regulation crafted to aid large content providers in future litigation against the ISPs. It does this by giving them a government sanctioned bludgeon which proclaims that the ISPs cannot charge them differently or treat their data differently than any other content provider (keep in mind that the NN Act is actually hundreds of pages long and invokes other regulatory mandates, as well).

So if, for example, Comcast decided to charge Netflix extra for using so much of their bandwidth, Netflix could take them to court to stop it with a high likelihood of success. Please understand that I have no personal desire to see Comcast or any other ISP charge more, but I think the free market should dictate who wins this business decision, not the government. ...

I agree with the previous posts that the rural argument is a straw man, and you are mixing/mashing all sorts of things with NN.

To the above, the solution has already been discussed. If the pipes are getting clogged by heavy users, start charging by the GB, similar to most other "pipe delivery services". No need to pick out certain services, a GB is a GB, whether it is Netflix, or any thousands of places I could download from. That would be a silly Wack-A-Mole or cat-mouse game.

None of your statements stand a logic test, I'm not sure why you are so insistent.

-ERD50

 

[sengsational]

So if, for example, Comcast decided to charge Netflix extra for using so much of their bandwidth, Netflix could take them to court to stop it with a high likelihood of success. Please understand that I have no personal desire to see Comcast or any other ISP charge more, but I think the free market should dictate who wins this business decision, not the government.

I think we all can see that if a giant like Comcast offends another giant like Netflix, they'd have lawyers aplenty and fairness would be served. But probably not true if Comcast offered a "Netflix Package" for an extra $19.95 per month. Probably also not so true if Comcast throttled some site without the resources to hire lawyers.

From an end user choice perspective, ignoring the intricacies of who owns the big pipes and if they're getting properly compensated, I'd say if Comcast charged me by the GB, which they are free to do under NN, then it shouldn't matter whether those bytes are from Netflix or JoeStartupFlix. They get paid to deliver the bytes.

It sounds like there are places in the NN debate where the free market probably would be better than government intervention, and that is on the "big pipe" side of things. What I realize is that I don't know enough about what goes on between corporations at that level. I have heard that there are "free ride" concerns when it comes to the big Internet pipes and the big Internet players. That's why I asked the question. Those concerns might be things that the free market would address. I'd need to do more study to understand what's going on at that level. If there's a non net neutrality solution that addresses the "free ride on big pipes" problem (if that's even a problem) and that solution doesn't give ISP's the ability to charge based on content type or source server, then I'd be glad to entertain that solution.

 

[oneill225]

To the above, the solution has already been discussed. If the pipes are getting clogged by heavy users, start charging by the GB, similar to most other "pipe delivery services". No need to pick out certain services, a GB is a GB, whether it is Netflix, or any thousands of places I could download from. That would be a silly Wack-A-Mole or cat-mouse game.

None of your statements stand a logic test, I'm not sure why you are so insistent.-ERD50

Any specific objections to my logic or position that the NN Act should be repealed? It sounds as though you may agree with me that it is unnecessary.

 

[ERD50]

Any specific objections to my logic or position that the NN Act should be repealed? It sounds as though you may agree with me that it is unnecessary.

Why repeal it? I think it makes sense to make a public statement that ISPs are not allowed to selectively choke data rates based on what the data is.

No sense waiting for it to become a problem, just state it from the start, nip it in the bud.

-ERD50

 

[bUU]

I don't think you read that link (or assumed I wouldn't).

I read it; expected you to read it; and it indeed supports the fact that monopoly is determined by market impact not impact on an individual.

And no, by considering what effects me directly, I avoid confusion.

Incorrect. And this reply of yours is case-in-point.

Thanks for the citation; this is what I read there:

a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.​

(emphasis mine)

So, saying "there's no monopoly because you can just move to get another vendor" is clearly not a defense...

I never said anything of the sort.

Regardless, an individual's lack of choices is irrelevant to the matter of whether a provider is a monopoly. What matters is whether a supplier has "significant and durable market power". It has to do with whether there are choices in the marketplace, not whether a specific consumer has choices.

The idea that the government should ensure equal access and cost to all services no matter where you live has real limitations. Thankfully, the free market is pretty responsive to consumer needs if there is a profit to be made.

Obviously, those living in remote/rural areas are not always a big profit center. That is why many farmers in Iowa, for example, need to drive an hour just to get to the mall. Based on some of the replies in this thread, I must assume that many think the answer to this problem is for the feds to order the mall owner to build a mall closer to each farmer.

Excellent example.

You are conflating two different things, and mis-stating (intentionally?) the purpose of NN. No one is trying to force ISPs to serve rural communities, nor to provide service at a reasonable rate, nor to prevent them from putting caps on data, or charging more $$ for more or faster data. None of that has ANYTHING to do with net neutrality.

The reason why it comes up is because those who favor net neutrality ground their argument in claims that the alternative is "harmful to consumers" (just like you tried to). The reality is that the only sound basis for net neutrality at this point is personal fiat - imposing the personal preferences of some consumers on a business. As long as there are myriad, truly essential services that are in the competitive space, then placing any restrictions on the providers of broadband service capable of delivering high-bandwidth video is nothing but.

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. That is truly a warped perspective. Why not approach this in a phased manner, doing the most important thing first and then working to improve from there? It seems it is because there is no real care about the truly essential and instead the concern is for the luxury option. Net neutrality overreached prematurely and that's why it didn't stick.

 

[oneill225]

Why repeal it? I think it makes sense to make a public statement that ISPs are not allowed to selectively choke data rates based on what the data is.

No sense waiting for it to become a problem, just state it from the start, nip it in the bud.ERD50

I think this is where we agree to disagree.

Happy Holidays.

 

[travelover]

Interesting hearing the arguments on each side.

I send a message to my congress critter, so she can delete it and vote the way her biggest donor requested, (if and when actual legislation is proposed).

 

[sengsational]

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.

Seeing your posts over the years, I was wondering about the reasoning for your position on this topic, but that fits. And I get it. A worthy cause to allow everyone to get some minimal access. Not a cause I'd fight for, but one I understand.

I'm not sure I'd put the "general net neutrality" problem and the "access for all" problem as mutually exclusive, though.

 

[bUU]

I didn't. I placed them in an order within which it would have been more politically costly to revoke it. The failure of net neutrality is in the fact that it sought to protect those who can afford a non-essential service, and sought to protect it at the expense of even-handedness toward those who utilize only the essential service. 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.