Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 The internet has always been the new frontier - where people stake their flags on their own territories and gather up as much waterfront property and resources as their fastest horse can reach. Time and time again these visionaries have swatted government encroachment into the territories. So, I'm wondering why Federal Regulation of the internet - in the guise of net neutrality - is even on the table with seemingly broad support from the frontier. I'm all for free market on the internet - the Information Superhighway. If the government wants to "free" the internet, then let them have a government-run ISP in the same manner as the United States Postal Service to compete for "Netflix streaming" and see what they can do with it. Because, as it is everywhere it is tried, putting the government in charge of evening out the haves and have-nots all serve to make the haves have more and the have-nots have less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windseeker Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Evidently fascism is a thing now. I thought this was a good piece. http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Evidently fascism is a thing now. I thought this was a good piece. http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324 See... this is a perfect example of why government-regulated Net Neutrality is a joke. To read the article above, I either have to create a free account with WSJ or buy a subscription. This is not going to change with Net Neutrality because there's such a thing as "I own this stuff" even on the internet. But, because I am free to choose, I can choose to do neither... and just find somebody who will tell me what's on it... L. Gordon Crovitz is right on the money... not only does the internet work just fine as it is without government regulations, it works amazingly well. With both owners and consumers just following their own noses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windseeker Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 This is pretty funny https://amp.twimg.com/v/547cc5ac-df8e-4e57-9033-de8c075a14d5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I live in Lehi and our ISP is Vivint Wireless; our service is nominally 50 Mbps and in practice more like 10. Our service is theoretically $50/month (we are a neighborhood hub, though, so our service is technically free in exchange for letting them mount their equipment on our roof).I was visiting my mother in CA last week and in the course of uploading some photos to a web-based scrapbook maker, was shocked that she was only getting 1.5 Mbps on a nominally 3 Mbps connection. We looked at alternatives and, as near as I could tell, Comcast was the only game in town if she wanted to get over 5 Mbps--and they wanted $70/month. None of the wireless services there could offer more than about 4 Mbps.I don't know what causes this near-monopoly condition in Comcast's favor. Net neutrality is being sold as something that can end that. I'm sort of sympathetic to that aim; but the trouble is that "net neutrality" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I'd rather see the problem addressed by the market and, if necessary, some conventional trust busting under existing antitrust law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 that internet should be given the same treatment that phone or electric companies did back in the day I'm agreeable to as a concept (actual implementation will likely vary)............. however if all the deals and that comcast wants goes how it wants to it'll physically own or be able ot heavily influence over 60% of the communication infrastructure in the US. and thats pretty scary.the two major concerns that are supposed to be addressed are1) ISPs constricting data or slapping a fee on streaming data from sources that they choose for whatever reason (IE say ISP A doesn't like Netflix so they dumb down the streams from that source unless customers cough extra dough, or not even that).... this is probabbly the the more important issue...2) ISP capping data flows to make customers pay more for what they used to do (think cable TV)... but this one is what's going to plague people much, much more. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I live in Lehi and our ISP is Vivint Wireless; our service is nominally 50 Mbps and in practice more like 10. Our service is theoretically $50/month (we are a neighborhood hub, though, so our service is technically free in exchange for letting them mount their equipment on our roof).I was visiting my mother in CA last week and in the course of uploading some photos to a web-based scrapbook maker, was shocked that she was only getting 1.5 Mbps on a nominally 3 Mbps connection. We looked at alternatives and, as near as I could tell, Comcast was the only game in town if she wanted to get over 5 Mbps--and they wanted $70/month. None of the wireless services there could offer more than about 4 Mbps.I don't know what causes this near-monopoly condition in Comcast's favor. Net neutrality is being sold as something that can end that. I'm sort of sympathetic to that aim; but the trouble is that "net neutrality" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I'd rather see the problem addressed by the market and, if necessary, some conventional trust busting under existing antitrust law. The near-monopoly is caused by Comcast and AT&T having the fastest horses when the frontier opened up. They were positioned to take significant rights to the infrastructure using the existing cable system that provides reliable and fast coast to coast and international communications so that for anybody else to get on the wagon, they have to find a piece of infrastructure they can ride along with. Further expansion was made through acquisitions and mergers of sizeable ownerships as is usually bound to happen in these situations. Verizon got in on it with their cell towers but for ISP's cable is still a big part of the infrastructure to provide the fastest and most reliable worldwide network. Yes, local governments gummed this up as they technically control the cables and airspace running through their regions through telecom commissions and such. And big players like Comcast are experts at manipulating governments. So, it is funny to me that people look to government to solve this "problem". I say leave the internet alone. This free flow of information is power to the people that will drive balance with very minimal regulations. Federal control of Net Neutrality is not the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 that internet should be given the same treatment that phone or electric companies did back in the day I'm agreeable to as a concept (actual implementation will likely vary)............. however if all the deals and that comcast wants goes how it wants to it'll physically own or be able ot heavily influence over 60% of the communication infrastructure in the US. and thats pretty scary.the two major concerns that are supposed to be addressed are1) ISPs constricting data or slapping a fee on streaming data from sources that they choose for whatever reason (IE say ISP A doesn't like Netflix so they dumb down the streams from that source unless customers cough extra dough, or not even that).... this is probabbly the the more important issue...2) ISP capping data flows to make customers pay more for what they used to do (think cable TV)... but this one is what's going to plague people much, much more. 1.) Is not going to be solved by regulations. Because, instead of private markets driving the behavior of the ISP, it will now be government driving this behavior which has no incentive to respond to market conditions. The thing is - if Comcast decides to only offer Netflix and people want Blockbuster, they will find a way to get Blockbuster. If the pressure is enough, this will drive innovation. For example - right now, we only use Comcast for internet. We got rid of their cable TV. I would have dropped their internet but my need (I rely on my internet to work) outweighs my desire. If my desire starts to outweigh my need, this will change. But, if you rely on government to "even this up" - Comcast can use their power to lobby and then they won't have to listen to the people coughing up $35 for their basic internet. 2.) For those who don't think a private company should be able to charge more for faster service (tiered service)... I don't have a response for you... I don't believe in the concept that a private enterprise should be forced to provide anybody anything. There is rich and there is poor - that's just the way it is even on the internet. The advantage of the internet over all other capitalist markets is... it vomits so much information that reaches very many people - rich or poor - in seconds. It is very hard for a company to shape propaganda without challenge. So an ISP capping data will be driven by market conditions and innovation... as was proven by Steve Jobs and AT&T. When Steve Jobs insisted that he will only market his iPhone to carriers that provide unlimited access to the internet... he got it. No need to bother the government with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windseeker Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Well this will be a big relief to Comcast. Just as the wave of public sentiment was ready to crest and consumers were oiling up their torches and grabbing their pitchforks due to outrageous costs and horrendous service, our Government steps in and provides Comcast a clear selection of pockets to line and a means to regulate competition into the dirt to ensure a dark future for us all. Let me see... Education..checkProperty ..checkEnergy..checkBanking..checkHealth Care..checkInternet....check If your a big enough monster...the Government wants in, so they get their cut and ensure your future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drham3rd Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 I'm not sure the market can effectively produce an open Internet. What will keep Comcast from blocking Netlix or changing more for Netflix than for other web sites. In most communities, cable has a legal monopoly. I think that issue would need to be addressed first if one was to argue that we do not want the FCC regulating ISP's. Right now the cart is being put before the horse, deal with the monopoly issues first then competition would allow the market to correct the situation BUT right now market can not act without some form or regulation!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crypto Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Many ISP's are actually purposefully not updating their infrastructure (or only doing it slowly), and limiting internet speeds. Besides costs, profit margins, many ISP's and Telecomms are also broadcasting and entertainment industry. Faster internet means greater ease to pirate. (Just though I should mention one piece to this issue) Edited February 25, 2015 by Crypto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapikui Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 When politicians control buying and selling, the first things bought and sold are the politicians. Until you fix this little problem, all such governmental power grabs need to be resisted. No amount of governmental regulation will help, and anything the government does will only hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Anytime the Govt wants to fix anything in this country ...it turns into a circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Many ISP's are actually purposefully not updating their infrastructure (or only doing it slowly), and limiting internet speeds. Besides costs, profit margins, many ISP's and Telecomms are also broadcasting and entertainment industry. Faster internet means greater ease to pirate. (Just though I should mention one piece to this issue)This doesn't make sense. For all the bellyaching artists made over napster, they still made the same profits with napster than without napster... And this was before artists figured out how to market their stuff on the internet. Now that media over the net is more the norm, they are more incentivized to build faster infrastructure... which they are doing.... Lots of new mega awesome cables are being run over the Atlantic...There's a movie about this even... With Keira Knightly and Mark Ruffalo. Great movie - you should go check it out.... Over the internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) This doesn't make sense. For all the bellyaching artists made over napster, they still made the same profits with napster than without napster... And this was before artists figured out how to market their stuff on the internet. Now that media over the net is more the norm, they are more incentivized to build faster infrastructure... which they are doing.... Lots of new mega awesome cables are being run over the Atlantic...There's a movie about this even... With Keira Knightly and Mark Ruffalo. Great movie - you should go check it out.... Over the internet. Actually I've seen a lot of folks go belly up because of piracy, or at least go into other sectors other than entertainment. Albeit they've all been small organizations or single individuals (some who i think deserved it, but a few that i'm really pissed had to do that tho because of piracy), to say that it makes no difference is not quite true. One reason that media over net is going forward quite rapidly is because DRM implementations have been increasing quite rapidly with it (it cuts down on casual piracy a lot).I think musicians tend to work with the system a bit better than other genres. Edited February 26, 2015 by Blackmarch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Actually I've seen a lot of folks go belly up because of piracy, or at least go into other sectors other than entertainment. Albeit they've all been small organizations or single individuals (some who i think deserved it, but a few that i'm really pissed had to do that tho because of piracy), to say that it makes no difference is not quite true. One reason that media over net is going forward quite rapidly is because DRM implementations have been increasing quite rapidly with it (it cuts down on casual piracy a lot).I think musicians tend to work with the system a bit better than other genres. When a generalized statement is made, it usually refers to statistical average... in business - there's the people who fail and the people who succeed. That's just the way it is. In the Food Industry, 7 out of 10 fail... yet the industry is still considered generally a fruitful endeavor without anybody needing to rope government into regulating things such that the other 7 succeed as much as the 3. In the retail business (like mall stores and grocery stores), the open aisles make for easy shoplifting. But, grocery stores are not going to put the aisles behind a customer service counter even with the shoplifting because the ease of access for consumers to the product makes more money than the cost of shoplifters. Same thing with the internet... there's no incentive to choke speed to prevent piracy. Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) When a generalized statement is made, it usually refers to statistical average... in business - there's the people who fail and the people who succeed. That's just the way it is. In the Food Industry, 7 out of 10 fail... yet the industry is still considered generally a fruitful endeavor without anybody needing to rope government into regulating things such that the other 7 succeed as much as the 3. In the retail business (like mall stores and grocery stores), the open aisles make for easy shoplifting. But, grocery stores are not going to put the aisles behind a customer service counter even with the shoplifting because the ease of access for consumers to the product makes more money than the cost of shoplifters. Same thing with the internet... there's no incentive to choke speed to prevent piracy.there's no need to choke speed period (and using piracy as an excuse is stupid). At least for wired connections. everything for that is just an excuse to placate people so they can be served up with higher fees. Edited February 26, 2015 by Blackmarch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) there's no need to choke speed period (and using piracy as an excuse is stupid). At least for wired connections. everything for that is just an excuse to placate people so they can be served up with higher fees. But there is... if only to gain back the investment in putting up the infrastructure for the high speed or to balance out demand. You're not going to charge the same money to drive a Ferrari versus a Prius... simply because, it costs more to build a Ferrari... At the same time, Disneyworld can charge you Fast Passes to their awesome rides because there are so many people wanting to ride the ride which can cause up to 3-hour-long wait times... offering the Fast Pass puts those who will pay to get out of the line the option of getting out of the line... making at least those people very satisfied and would want to come back and spend more money... the ones that have Ferraris are not going to sit in line for 3 hours to enjoy Disney. And Disney can use the money to build more rides... It's the magic of this thing called Capitalism where Supply and Demand always keeps balance. But, yes, yes, it's technically not "choking". It is simply prioritizing - which gives the effect of choking. Because, if you're in a low-usage area, your $35 basic can give you very high speeds (max the infrastructure allows) comparable to your $135 special in a neighborhood where every house is siphoning data off the line. But then the $35 special in the heavy-use neighborhood will be crawling at AOL dial-up speed... Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) But there is... if only to gain back the investment in putting up the infrastructure for the high speed or to balance out demand. You're not going to charge the same money to drive a Ferrari versus a Prius... simply because, it costs more to build a Ferrari... At the same time, Disneyworld can charge you Fast Passes to their awesome rides because there are so many people wanting to ride the ride which can cause up to 3-hour-long wait times... offering the Fast Pass puts those who will pay to get out of the line the option of getting out of the line... making at least those people very satisfied and would want to come back and spend more money... the ones that have Ferraris are not going to sit in line for 3 hours to enjoy Disney. And Disney can use the money to build more rides... It's the magic of this thing called Capitalism where Supply and Demand always keeps balance. But, yes, yes, it's technically not "choking". It is simply prioritizing - which gives the effect of choking. Because, if you're in a low-usage area, your $35 basic can give you very high speeds (max the infrastructure allows) comparable to your $135 special in a neighborhood where every house is siphoning data off the line. But then the $35 special in the heavy-use neighborhood will be crawling at AOL dial-up speed...ya capitalism is fine till people start rigging the playing field (personally had anti monopoly laws been better enforced [or perhaps less loopholed] things likely wouldn't have gotten to the point where they are now), or when the competition gets squashed or bought out.. or even better the rulemakers get bought out.nor is this about paying for new updated infrasttructure (that option has always been there, and still will be, and the people that have access to faster lines do pay more for them).sure driving for a ferrari you paid for is fine.. its when you force all the other drivers to stay in one lane and at an even lower speed limit (or to give up their hondas for horse carts) so that the ferrari users can have the rest of the road that was already there is when things get into a grey area.The big thing that that I do support out of what happened is that ISPs have to treat all legal sites equally. thats the big good thing thats come out of it. (at least on the top of it... how the guts works out in the end will probably be less than stellar). Companies that have experience with working under the telecommunications utility laws will probably have a bit of an advantage for a while. Edited February 26, 2015 by Blackmarch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackmarch Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 and that the major broadband companies are resisting the move, I'm guessing it's probably more on the good side than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) ya capitalism is fine till people start rigging the playing field (personally had anti monopoly laws been better enforced [or perhaps less loopholed] things likely wouldn't have gotten to the point where they are now), or when the competition gets squashed or bought out.. or even better the rulemakers get bought out.nor is this about paying for new updated infrasttructure (that option has always been there, and still will be, and the people that have access to faster lines do pay more for them).sure driving for a ferrari you paid for is fine.. its when you force all the other drivers to stay in one lane and at an even lower speed limit (or to give up their hondas for horse carts) so that the ferrari users can have the rest of the road that was already there is when things get into a grey area.The big thing that that I do support out of what happened is that ISPs have to treat all legal sites equally. thats the big good thing thats come out of it. (at least on the top of it... how the guts works out in the end will probably be less than stellar). Companies that have experience with working under the telecommunications laws will probably have a bit of an advantage for a while. I agree with you on everything except the opinion that the problems with Capitalism as it is now (the points you brought up doesn't just apply to the internet, but all throughout the market) is the Capitalist and the solution is the Government. Yes, markets need to be regulated - but this purpose cannot be to pick winners or losers (even if everybody agrees that the loser needs to win) - but purely to keep healthy competition. We already have existing rules to maintain competition (whether it is enforced is another story) as is shown by the anti-trust case against Microsoft and the ongoing cases of Apple versus Samsung. And like I have mentioned - the internet has an element that no other industry has been able to avail of since the founding of the nation - Information Vomit. So that, everything an ISP does - including backdoor deals - can potentially become viral in seconds and nothing - not even the efforts of oppressive governments like China or the Mid East can suppress it. Now, if you are going to say... ISP's don't treat legal sites equally and only the government can fix it then Federal control of Net Neutrality might be viable. But, this is not currently posing an isurmountable problem for American consumers... mainly because of the free flow of Information. And not only that - if it DOES become a problem - Federal control of Net Neutrality through FCC regulations is the farthest from the solution... in fact, it poses MORE problems because the ISPs that would have the power to filter websites without getting overpowered by the voice of consumers are the SAME ISPs who have the power to lobby. A better solution for that problem, in my opinion, is for the government to provide a public ISP to compete against the private markets and service hard-to-reach areas - the same way the Post Office competes against FedEx and the AM/FM radio competes against XM, and public HD competes against paid TV, etc. Then the consumer has an out from government control of an entire industry. As it stands right now - Net Neutrality proposals (well, nobody really knows what the new rules are going to be) is poised to be like Obamacare - government umbrella over the entire healthcare system which gives insurance companies even more power to suck the juice out of people's pockets. Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crypto Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) This doesn't make sense. For all the bellyaching artists made over napster, they still made the same profits with napster than without napster... And this was before artists figured out how to market their stuff on the internet. Now that media over the net is more the norm, they are more incentivized to build faster infrastructure... which they are doing.... Lots of new mega awesome cables are being run over the Atlantic...There's a movie about this even... With Keira Knightly and Mark Ruffalo. Great movie - you should go check it out.... Over the internet. I'm not saying it makes sense, or if it is good or bad, I'm saying this was a reason put forth by an ISP in a subtle battle with google fiber. (While also involves net neutrality) Edited February 26, 2015 by Crypto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Just to be clear... Net Neutrality is a good thing. Net Neutrality through FCC regulations is a bad thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Anytime the Govt gets involved....it's never good. If you like your Internet Provider you can keep your Internet Provider. skalenfehl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahone Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Just to be clear... Net Neutrality is a good thing.You think so?Out of curiosity, how do you define network neutrality? What would you like to see ISPs doing with the traffic going through their networks? Edited February 27, 2015 by Mahone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.