400 Pages of Neutrality

H

Hodr

Guest
So did you look at the document? Because less than 10 of those pages are the actual rules, the rest is mostly comprised of the legally required synopsis of the public comment period.

I know the libertarian/free market bent is to say that the ISPs should have free reign to do as they wish and charge what they wish for access, but that leaves out a very important point.

The ISPs rely upon the government to force you, me, and everyone else to provide the ISPs free access to our property. The government has effectively granted them a local monopoly for access, and accepting that government help should come with a responsibility to the customers in addition to their bottom line.

Without the government the ISP would have to individually contract with every person whose property they run their cables through. Just like you believe that the ISP should have full unrestrained authority over the data (which doesn't belong to the ISP) that passes through their cables, the property owners should have full authority over the cable (which doesn't belong to them) that passes through their property.

So, if the ISP decides to throttle Mr. Homeowner's connection to Netflix, Mr. Homeowner should be able to run a backhoe through their property and throttle the ISPs connection to everyone downstream of that property. I mean free market and no government regulation and all that. Except we all know that wouldn't be allowed. The ISP relies on the government to force you to give them right-of-way through your property, to force you to leave the ISPs equipment alone, and they will not pay you a single cent in return.

Just like the FCC was allowed to tell broadcasters that in order to make use of public airwaves they needed to follow "the rules", the ISPs should be required to follow the rules if they wish to rely on local monopolies and eminent domain to make their product profitable. If they ever find a way to do so without government help, then by all means they should be free to ignore net-neutrality.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Hodr said:
So did you look at the document? Because less than 10 of those pages are the actual rules, the rest is mostly comprised of the legally required synopsis of the public comment period.

I know the libertarian/free market bent is to say that the ISPs should have free reign to do as they wish and charge what they wish for access, but that leaves out a very important point.

The ISPs rely upon the government to force you, me, and everyone else to provide the ISPs free access to our property. The government has effectively granted them a local monopoly for access, and accepting that government help should come with a responsibility to the customers in addition to their bottom line.

Without the government the ISP would have to individually contract with every person whose property they run their cables through. Just like you believe that the ISP should have full unrestrained authority over the data (which doesn't belong to the ISP) that passes through their cables, the property owners should have full authority over the cable (which doesn't belong to them) that passes through their property.

So, if the ISP decides to throttle Mr. Homeowner's connection to Netflix, Mr. Homeowner should be able to run a backhoe through their property and throttle the ISPs connection to everyone downstream of that property. I mean free market and no government regulation and all that. Except we all know that wouldn't be allowed. The ISP relies on the government to force you to give them right-of-way through your property, to force you to leave the ISPs equipment alone, and they will not pay you a single cent in return.

Just like the FCC was allowed to tell broadcasters that in order to make use of public airwaves they needed to follow "the rules", the ISPs should be required to follow the rules if they wish to rely on local monopolies and eminent domain to make their product profitable. If they ever find a way to do so without government help, then by all means they should be free to ignore net-neutrality.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that by adding more governmental regulation as a Title II carrier; that the surge of internet accessibility and innovation will continue? Do you honestly believe that with those Title II classifications and the regulations and cost that come with that (ever notice that little surcharge on your phone bill?) small companies will be able to comply and survive?

No, they won't, and your argument over big ISPs and monopolies goes out the window because that's all that will be left.

This is not a problem. This is a solution looking for a problem, and all anyone wants to talk about is throttling. That's such a small portion of what will happen that it's just crazy to keep brining up that one talking point.

Just look at the choices people had 5 years ago compared to now. Buy what you watch packages, streaming services, etc. all give the customer more options than large ISPs. The lack of governmental regulation is exactly why the internet has grown so exponentially over the last decade or so. Speeds are increasing, choices are increasing, access is increasing (over 80% of Americans have access to 25mbps speeds), and investments are increasing. In the US, investments per household are $562 per household, compared to Europe (who shares a similar "utility model" for internet) invests only $244 per household.

If the private sector has no initiative to risk their own money building a sound infrastructure and a government second guessing them the entire way, regulating rates, regulating their service plans, and regulating the agreements made between the users and companies, then you'll get a weakened backbone and even weaker innovation.

Also, The regulations are over 300 pages. 8 of them are regulations, but there are uncodified rules (ones that won't make the federal regulations, but the private sector will have to abide by), there are 79 pages of regulations they won't be taking action on, an "internet conduct standard" (giving the FCC ability to decide which plans are legit, and what ones aren't), and various other amendments. So, no, it's not like there's a few simple pages of rules, and bunch of definitions and gobbledygook.

The chairman of the FCC won't release these to the public. Why do you think that is? A non-governmental agency is willing to make sweeping changes and additions of regulations to our internet and they won't release it. That should be a red flag to anyone.

There's this nightmare scenario pushed by net-neutrality proponents that claims Comcast will push its own content on users by simply blocking sites that offer competing content. Or maybe it will degrade the video streams of Netflix and Amazon so no one will want to watch them. Or they will just charge Netflix a lot of money to make sure its streams flow smoothly over that "last mile" that the ISP controls. Or they will implement tighter and tighter data caps on the amount of usage a given subscriber can use per month, but exempt its own content from any such limitations.

Outside of a handful of occasional cases of these issues, they were either the result of human error, technological breakdowns, or short-lived policies that customer complaints put an end to. All that despite the lack of FCC regulations or net neutrality. The largest example would be the Comcast/Netflix issue where Comcast was caught throttling streams. Comcast denied that, and research showed they were correct, and Netflix was attempting to push its streams via congested parts of the Internet. Netflix agreed to pay Comcast more money for "peering" arrangements, which net neutrality regulations have no effect on.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2014/10/07/netflix-net-neutrality/16824437/

http://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

To your point about crappy speeds and having monopolies, according to the FCC's "Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2012" 4 years of access and speed were analyzed, showing that the number, variety, and speed of Internet connections increased significantly. not something you typically see with a monopoly. Remember back in 2010 when the FCC defined as service that offered a 4Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream as "high speed broadband". 3 years later, according to the FCC, 80% of households in America have at least two fixed and/or mobile providers that offer "at least 10 Mbps downstream speeds,". Then, a few months ago, it arbitrarily upped its definition to be 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream (It wasn't long ago we were all using 56K modems). Given what the internet is, sure, more people may sign up, by why would a monopoly have any incentive to increase speed or reliability? The net neutrality proponents, and FCC's argument involving monopolies, is false.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db1224/DOC-324884A1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Just look at the delivery of cable and internet in recent years. From using phone lines, to other fixed connections like DSL and coax cable, and now to increasing fiber and mobile services. Do you think that by adding regulations we'll see more innovation regarding how these services enter our home? Look back at telephone systems after FCC regulations. Bell phone company fought long and hard to limit long distance calling alternatives, answering machines, and letting people own their own phones. This is because with that increased regulation came a freeze in innovation and forced them to be stuck with existing infrastructure.

This isn't about Comcast having ####ty costumer service, it's about their products and services getting better regardless of competition or market forces.

The idea that they've become monopolies is because local governments gave them that. That regulatory scheme put in place by those governments and agencies is exactly why startup companies cannot get off the ground and offer more competition than what we are seeing (by large companies). As I said, Title II regulations will only hurt those companies even more because they will not have the resources to comply with even more regulation.

Do you trust the federal government to make the Internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is today? Do you think it'll be better if ISPs were ran like electrical or water companies?
 
W

Warron

Member
Government regulation my be burdensome and controlled by incompetents, but on the other end, corporations are basically thieves. So which is going to do a better job?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top