Author Topic: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load  (Read 3069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2017, 07:21:45 PM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3881
  • Tommy Points: 706
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.

Again, all good information. I see the logic behind it.

But I question how free is the market, really? I have exactly one choice for cable. I don't live in the sticks. I can choose a phone provider, or satellite instead, but those generally inferior services (speed/reliability).

I have to imagine if the cable lines were open to any service provider to use them I'd have more than one choice. Now maybe it would cost the public too much to own the lines, that's an argument I'd like to see.

Yeah, this is also a concern to many people as well. Right now there are too many parts of the country that do not really have a competitive market when it comes to physically getting the internet data to your house. I personally wish there was more competition there, too. That, i believe, is outside the purview of net neutrality. However, at the very least, even if you have non competitive pricing and bad, noncompetitive customer service, once you have access to the internet, you have access to the whole thing. Without net neutrality, you may not only have areas with one physical cable provider, but the actual information coming through the cables may be unusably slow if it comes from a completitor of the company providing your internet

 To take the road analogy further, its like hiring a company to build and maintain roads. Then that sme company gets to set the toll prices themselves. Not only that, but they could charge different tolls depending on what your job is and what car you drove; if you drive a car that the road company has a deal with, its cheaper. And, not only that, but they build 2 lane roads going to stores and shopping cnters they also own, and build 1 lane expensive toll roads to competitor stores, indowndent stores, etc

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2017, 10:38:41 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 467
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.

Again, all good information. I see the logic behind it.

But I question how free is the market, really? I have exactly one choice for cable. I don't live in the sticks. I can choose a phone provider, or satellite instead, but those generally inferior services (speed/reliability).

I have to imagine if the cable lines were open to any service provider to use them I'd have more than one choice. Now maybe it would cost the public too much to own the lines, that's an argument I'd like to see.

That's a problem of municipalities making bad "exclusive" contracts with cable providers.   That's a whole 'nuther topic of discussion, but basically in many towns, the folks wanted access to cable networks so some cable provider would come in and offer to the town a great deal to install the lines along the poles and ground feeds ... but _only_ if they were granted exclusive right to do so.   Many of those exclusive contracts have since expired, but even after the fact, those companies have a big advantage over others trying to enter those markets so in many areas, other options still aren't available.   In my town, a few areas have two different ISP options, but in most (including my neighborhood) we still are stuck with just the one option.    Eventually, the competitors will permeate into all the neighborhoods, but it will probably take a long time.

This problem isn't exclusive to cable access.  The same sort of problems exist for things like natural gas line access and other utilities.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2017, 01:44:15 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9525
  • Tommy Points: 1055
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.

Again, all good information. I see the logic behind it.

But I question how free is the market, really? I have exactly one choice for cable. I don't live in the sticks. I can choose a phone provider, or satellite instead, but those generally inferior services (speed/reliability).

I have to imagine if the cable lines were open to any service provider to use them I'd have more than one choice. Now maybe it would cost the public too much to own the lines, that's an argument I'd like to see.

That's a problem of municipalities making bad "exclusive" contracts with cable providers.   That's a whole 'nuther topic of discussion, but basically in many towns, the folks wanted access to cable networks so some cable provider would come in and offer to the town a great deal to install the lines along the poles and ground feeds ... but _only_ if they were granted exclusive right to do so.   Many of those exclusive contracts have since expired, but even after the fact, those companies have a big advantage over others trying to enter those markets so in many areas, other options still aren't available.   In my town, a few areas have two different ISP options, but in most (including my neighborhood) we still are stuck with just the one option.    Eventually, the competitors will permeate into all the neighborhoods, but it will probably take a long time.

This problem isn't exclusive to cable access.  The same sort of problems exist for things like natural gas line access and other utilities.

I guess my point is, net neutrality may be a good bandaid, but that's really all it is, a bandaid to a deeper core issue, that issue being control of the public utility infrastructure.

In most areas a single cable company will still have exclusive control of the lines.  Ultimately, what we're dealing with here is a market reaction where streaming services started to offer the same video content as cable companies, at a cheaper price, which undercut the business model of the cable companies.  Well, since the lines being used to transmit these streaming services are owned by the cable company why shouldn't they alter their business model?  The cable company bears the cost of maintaining the lines, yet some streaming service can just come along and offer the same video content as the cable company, using the cable company's lines to transmit the service, and do so at a cheaper cost.  If I was the CEO of a cable company I would not be happy about that.

My guess is even with net neutrality we are going to continue to see internet service costs continue to rise at steep rates as a reaction to more and more people switching to streaming services.  It's kind of a no-brainer for the cable companies.  So really, we're not actually solving the issue at it's core.


Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2017, 07:48:10 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 467
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.

That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

It isn't necessary or necessarily desirable for the transmission infrastructure to be publicly owned in order for this to work.   Indeed, it has worked very well (perhaps the fastest growing industry ever) so far, with commercial ownership of various ISPs competing with each other to provide faster and more reliable service.   So long as they provide 'net neutral' transport of the IP packets that traverse them, then they are still free to innovate to improve their speed and reliability and to charge what they want for their service - provided they charge the same regardless of the packet origin, content & destination.

In other words, there currently already IS a competitive market for the services they provide and so long as they provide those services in a packet-neutral way, they implement a vast medium for a much larger free market on top of them.

Public ownership of the ISP services would not really accomplish anything and would remove that competitive market and possibly stifle innovation in the actual delivery of packet transfer services.

Again, all good information. I see the logic behind it.

But I question how free is the market, really? I have exactly one choice for cable. I don't live in the sticks. I can choose a phone provider, or satellite instead, but those generally inferior services (speed/reliability).

I have to imagine if the cable lines were open to any service provider to use them I'd have more than one choice. Now maybe it would cost the public too much to own the lines, that's an argument I'd like to see.

That's a problem of municipalities making bad "exclusive" contracts with cable providers.   That's a whole 'nuther topic of discussion, but basically in many towns, the folks wanted access to cable networks so some cable provider would come in and offer to the town a great deal to install the lines along the poles and ground feeds ... but _only_ if they were granted exclusive right to do so.   Many of those exclusive contracts have since expired, but even after the fact, those companies have a big advantage over others trying to enter those markets so in many areas, other options still aren't available.   In my town, a few areas have two different ISP options, but in most (including my neighborhood) we still are stuck with just the one option.    Eventually, the competitors will permeate into all the neighborhoods, but it will probably take a long time.

This problem isn't exclusive to cable access.  The same sort of problems exist for things like natural gas line access and other utilities.

I guess my point is, net neutrality may be a good bandaid, but that's really all it is, a bandaid to a deeper core issue, that issue being control of the public utility infrastructure.

In most areas a single cable company will still have exclusive control of the lines.  Ultimately, what we're dealing with here is a market reaction where streaming services started to offer the same video content as cable companies, at a cheaper price, which undercut the business model of the cable companies.  Well, since the lines being used to transmit these streaming services are owned by the cable company why shouldn't they alter their business model?  The cable company bears the cost of maintaining the lines, yet some streaming service can just come along and offer the same video content as the cable company, using the cable company's lines to transmit the service, and do so at a cheaper cost.  If I was the CEO of a cable company I would not be happy about that.

My guess is even with net neutrality we are going to continue to see internet service costs continue to rise at steep rates as a reaction to more and more people switching to streaming services.  It's kind of a no-brainer for the cable companies.  So really, we're not actually solving the issue at it's core.

The non-competitive market move isn't the streaming service sending their packets over the ISP's network, because their customers are paying the ISPs for bandwidth used by those packets.  The non-competitive market move is the ISP adding their own streaming services (instead of something, say, original) and then wanting the ability to arbitrarily wall off competition by throttling that bandwidth.

The net-neutrality rules are not a band-aid.  They are a field-leveler and are easy to monitor (simple bandwidth performance tests) and enforce.

Public ownership of the networks is not needed and as I indicated, not conducive to further technological innovation in the delivery of packet transfer services.

The problem of micro-monopolies due to municipal 'exclusive' contracts is temporal.  Already, as those contracts have expired, competing providers gradually have started to build lines penetrating into those markets.  And long term, the market is going to move more and more towards ubiquitous high-speed wireless networks that do not need to-your-house wiring to be laid down.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.
#OneCitizenOneVote - True Election Reform:  Eliminate the anti-democratic Electoral College farce now.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2017, 02:26:34 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18132
  • Tommy Points: 8816
apparently it's official now. 

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/12/14/federal-communications-commission-votes-to-repeal-net-neutrality-rules/23307670/

this really sucks.  nothing good will come from this. 

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #50 on: December 14, 2017, 02:39:20 PM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2648
  • Tommy Points: 445
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
disgusting
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #51 on: December 14, 2017, 03:33:37 PM »

Offline kraidstar

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1726
  • Tommy Points: 478
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.


That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

The road analogy is incomplete.

Imagine Comcast Roads Inc begins extracting money not only from drivers, but from businesses.

They charge the local McDonald's $100,000 a year for normal speed driving access. McDonald's prices increase slightly. A smaller restaurant, "Healthy Burgers," does not have anywhere near the $100,000 and has traffic throttled to the point where their business is cut in half.

Comcast Roads doesn't care, as they will make their money regardless.

In a few years many smaller restaurants have gone out of business, and much of the public is angry.

They form a political committee to drive Comcast out of business. Comcast roads slows traffic to a crawl to their political meetings, and slows traffic of affiliated members and critical news outlets. They make it far too much of a hassle to be a part of the Anti-Comcast Committee, or anything anti-comcast, and Comcast effectively throttles criticism.

Now, it might not unfold quite as blatantly as this, but it is certainly possible, especially as the public becomes more and more indoctrinated/tolerant of corporate misdeeds.

Sound like a good system to you?

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2017, 12:02:36 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33251
  • Tommy Points: -27964
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.

1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law

2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan


1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis.  It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away  from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field.  In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines that advocated net-neutrality.  Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines.   So it WAS a problem that DID exist.  The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality.   So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order".   Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers".   The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place.   This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.

2. This seems vague.  This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market.     The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.   

Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.

Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.

Does that sound like a "free market"?   That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.

Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.

Quote
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.

I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.

As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.

Almost nothing is that black and white.


Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers.   That is it.  There has been no compelling reason offered.   Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".

The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service.   The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.



This is good information. TP

Also, I do tend to agree with the "road" analogy, which is why I posed the question of whether or not the public should own the transmission lines.

On the surface, it seems to me IP packets fall more under the domain of privately owned data or content. But the infrastructure, or "roads", i.e. the transmission line, should be publicly owned. This would be a much better means of breaking up what is essentially a monopoly.


That's my rudimentary take on the matter.

The road analogy is incomplete.

Imagine Comcast Roads Inc begins extracting money not only from drivers, but from businesses.

They charge the local McDonald's $100,000 a year for normal speed driving access. McDonald's prices increase slightly. A smaller restaurant, "Healthy Burgers," does not have anywhere near the $100,000 and has traffic throttled to the point where their business is cut in half.

Comcast Roads doesn't care, as they will make their money regardless.

In a few years many smaller restaurants have gone out of business, and much of the public is angry.

They form a political committee to drive Comcast out of business. Comcast roads slows traffic to a crawl to their political meetings, and slows traffic of affiliated members and critical news outlets. They make it far too much of a hassle to be a part of the Anti-Comcast Committee, or anything anti-comcast, and Comcast effectively throttles criticism.

Now, it might not unfold quite as blatantly as this, but it is certainly possible, especially as the public becomes more and more indoctrinated/tolerant of corporate misdeeds.

Sound like a good system to you?

Did any of that happen prior to 2015? 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2017, 12:11:27 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31050
  • Tommy Points: 5174
Just another money grab for many of the largest future companies in the world at the expense of the the regular human and small business. Corporate welfare by our government at its very best. Sickening, especially after the tax reform bill that looks like is going to be forced through without around 50% of the Senators not being able to read the bill before it gets voted on.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2017, 01:33:39 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9820
  • Tommy Points: 2132

Did any of that happen prior to 2015?

People keep saying this, but it completely ignores a lot of things, and is really a bit of a straw man.

First off, telecom is the field Iíve been working in the past half-decade, specifically in economics dealing with both regulations and mergers.  When Iím not thinking about the Celtics, this is what Iím thinking about.  I know more about this than I do the NBA salary cap.

The first 15-20 years of the commercial internet (depending when youíd like to say the Internet was born) operated largely under the 2015 regulations the FCC codified, but voluntarily.  In the mid-2000s, some ISPs looked into creating various pricing regimes and/or blocked content without any notification.  BitTorrent was a major target.  The excuse was that many of the files being downloaded were pirated.  While that may have been true, certainly not all were, it wasnít even clear that a majority was, and the content was universally blocked, as ISPís tried to slow down peak users.  VOIP was another major target, as companies that provided both phone and internet service didnít want to allow voice competition.  Comcast settled for millions of dollars for blocking BitTorrent.  Smaller providers also made settlements for blocking VOIP.  So when people say that companies will outright block websites without any notice, theyíre saying that because it already happened.  VOIP is quickly becoming the leading way to provide voice telephony ó itís significantly cheaper than the expensive equipment required for traditional switched telephony.  VOIP might never have happened if providers had successfully blocked it in the mid-2000s.  When people say that getting rid of net neutrality might stifle innovation, theyíre saying it because thatís exactly what would have happened with VOIP.

Anyway, the (Bush) FCC worked with NCTA to create some Net Neutrality rules as a result of some of the above actions.  They also sought to codify it for companies when they came before the FCC mergers.  When Bell South bought AT&T (and kept AT&Tís name), they had to abide by net neutrality rules until 2012 as a condition for approval.  When they bought Direct TV in 2015, they again agreed to abide by many of the regulations for several more years.  When Comcast bought NBC, they agreed to the same conditions for several years (which conveniently expire next year).  So has Comcast tried to do a lot of the stuff that Net Neutrality prevented?  For the most part, not recently, but thatís due to the fact they were prevented from doing so by another mechanism that is shortly expiring.  The same goes for AT&T to a lesser extent.

Meanwhile, the FCC tried to create Net Neutrality rules.  They twice tried to do so ó both times they lost in Court.  The second time was a hullabaloo.  The FCC had worked with the telecom industry to pass regulations that everyone could be happy with.  Several months after the regulations went into effect, Verizon got cold feet and sued.  The telecom lobby was at least as mad at Verizon as the FCC was, because everyone knew that new rules could be worse if Verizon won, which is what happened in earl 2014.  The Court said that the FCC needed to reclassify ISPs so that they could be regulated under Title II, which is a lot more stringent.  Ultimately thatís what happened in 2015, and was reversed today.

During the interregnum period of net neutrality (from 2014-2015) Netflix entered into an agreement with Comcast for paid prioritization.  Thereís no reason to expect these deals wonít occur in the future, which ultimately will lead to higher prices for consumers.

Anyway, the point is that regulation wasnít initially needed because the industry policed itself.  Then a few companies started to cheat a bit, and so regulation was needed.  The companies that cheated generally had their activities stopped by the FCC in the course of other proceedings (Verizon has had to abide by some of the Bush era net neutrality rules which were attached to the spectrum licenses they won in 2008, a restriction which ends next year also), so we havenít fully seen what unfettered companies can do.  The other point is that many/most Americans canít switch.  Between 50-75% (depending on the study) of households have one high-speed broadband provider.  This lack of choice is precisely why regulation is needed, because market forces canít correct it.

Finally, the 2015 rules pretty much kept in place the rules that most companies had been operating under, and codified them.  The internet is an incredibly large portion of the economy, and the FCC adjust voted to change the rules without any economic analysis to support them and say what would happen.  Iíve talked with a couple FCC economsits off the record, and theyíre upset and embarrassed at the final product, as they werenít allowed to even design a model to see if this would hurt or help the economy.

All in all, today was a travesty, and there will be real consequences.  Maybe not immediately, since several of the big players are prevented from doing much in the next year, but they are coming.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 09:30:17 AM by saltlover »

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2017, 03:53:07 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7507
  • Tommy Points: 767
Ive done some more reading on this and my conclusion seems to be that the majority of the benefits of repealing net-neutrality only exist in a fantasy-land where there is way more competition among ISPs than actually exists.

That said, I do not think the sky is falling.

Presumably, states will pass their own versions of net neutrality in the near future. Furthermore, the public will be hyper-aware of this for the next few years and any company risks some really bad publicity if they start ****ing customers over.

Hopefully, the fear of bad publicity forces company to only use their new freedom in the way it was intended(or at least the way it was presented). Charge services like Netflix premiums in order to receive priority service and use use the extra profits to improve the product.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2017, 05:56:29 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14913
  • Tommy Points: 947
Loaded just fine for me, right now.  I am for Net Neutrality and against throttling but I have never had an issue with it and I have been on the internet for a while.  I would be willing to pay more for certain sites if their bandwidth to me was improved.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2017, 07:23:19 AM »

Offline D Dub

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3110
  • Tommy Points: 249
Ive done some more reading on this and my conclusion seems to be that the majority of the benefits of repealing net-neutrality only exist in a fantasy-land where there is way more competition among ISPs than actually exists.

That said, I do not think the sky is falling.

Presumably, states will pass their own versions of net neutrality in the near future. Furthermore, the public will be hyper-aware of this for the next few years and any company risks some really bad publicity if they start ****ing customers over.

Hopefully, the fear of bad publicity forces company to only use their new freedom in the way it was intended(or at least the way it was presented). Charge services like Netflix premiums in order to receive priority service and use use the extra profits to improve the product.

Iím kind of expecting ESPN to exact revenge on Simmons and have a site like, The Ringer, relegated to the slow lanes.  That would force most of the viewing public back to their page for reasonably viewable sports content.   

I really donít think weíll see anything get faster ó quite the opposite in fact. 

Anything outside mainstream will become brutally slow.  And with such an impatient society, itíll likely have similar effects as censorship, ie, waiting forever for a controversial website to load...

But hey why not bend the entire nation over backwards so the very richest Americans can have a few more advantages afforded to them? 

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2017, 08:55:14 AM »

Offline chilidawg

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1749
  • Tommy Points: 221
Thanks Saltlover for that background piece.  Not something I knew anything about.  I just assumed that since the Trump administration was pushing it (removing Net Neutrality) that what ever they were doing was wrong.  And it looks like I was right.

Re: Without Net Neutrality this site will take forever to load
« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2017, 09:33:51 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1178
  • Tommy Points: 125
Ive done some more reading on this and my conclusion seems to be that the majority of the benefits of repealing net-neutrality only exist in a fantasy-land where there is way more competition among ISPs than actually exists.

That said, I do not think the sky is falling.

Presumably, states will pass their own versions of net neutrality in the near future. Furthermore, the public will be hyper-aware of this for the next few years and any company risks some really bad publicity if they start ****ing customers over.

Hopefully, the fear of bad publicity forces company to only use their new freedom in the way it was intended(or at least the way it was presented). Charge services like Netflix premiums in order to receive priority service and use use the extra profits to improve the product.

I do think companies are aware of the bad optics and will tend to not make major moves right away. It is over time that they will slowly change and it will require constant vigilance on the part of the public. At least we have the precedent of Net Neutrality to threaten companies. We could always go back as long as we are persistent.