• Home
  •  » High Street
  •  » Next Boondoggle Contestant - Please sign in Net Neutrality

#1 2017-04-26 16:45:58

Ajit Pai, Trump's FCC lapdog announced his plan to end Title II Net Neutrality.

His proposal will do three things: first, itíll reclassify internet providers as Title I information services; second, itíll prevent the FCC from adapting any net neutrality rules to practices that internet providers havenít thought up yet; and third, itíll open questions about what to do with several key net neutrality rules ó like no blocking or throttling of apps and websites ó that were implemented in 2015.

I'm not involved with that end of the industry, except as a consumer, and it just looks like a total mess either way to me.  One one hand, he's right, oppressive government oversite stifles the industry and inhibits small internet providers.  On the other hand, "Let them police themselves" always scares the shit out of consumers.

Even though the ISPs are classified as utilities, their charge for services are not currently regulated by any PUCs nor by any department of the FedGov.  It mostly has to do with their inability to charge different rates to different websites or to move them into the slower lanes.  However, since a slow lane this days is ~100 Mbps, do we really give a shit if Netflix is accessible at 500+ Mbps and High-Street only at 100?

In other words, is Net Neutrality actually slowing the evolution of Internet speed?

Offline

 

#2 2017-04-28 03:29:45

How will the people who want to make the next Netflix ever get started if they're relegated to the slow lane?  Are you happy to have your VR porn (or whatever) experience artificially limited by your ISP's greed?

You can count on Ajit Pai doing whatever he thinks will make Verizon and AT&T the most money, period.  Principle has nothing to do with it.

Offline

 

#3 2017-04-28 09:02:35

square wrote:

How will the people who want to make the next Netflix ever get started if they're relegated to the slow lane?  Are you happy to have your VR porn (or whatever) experience artificially limited by your ISP's greed?

You can count on Ajit Pai doing whatever he thinks will make Verizon and AT&T the most money, period.  Principle has nothing to do with it.

The same way every small business used to start in America, regionally and slowly.  Let's also remember that 1000 Mbps Wi-Fi is already a real thing.  If a local ISP in my area came in with that speed for half the price, I'd have to at least think about it.  We're still thinking of the Internet the way we used to think about our telephones.

Offline

 

#4 2017-04-28 09:33:40

Jeebus, Slow is 100 Mbps? In my town I would burn witches in the public square for the 22 Mbps they tell me I should at least be getting, I am lucky when I get 6 to 7. All this joy for a grand a year.  If they slow it down anymore I will be transported in time to the 1990s, when I'd rather be sent back, if I have to go,  to the 1750s where I could just resign myself to using pith balls and static electricity for digital communications. I could have been a force of nature in those circles.


In 1753 an anonymous writer in the Scots Magazine suggested an electrostatic telegraph. Using one wire for each letter of the alphabet, a message could be transmitted by connecting the wire terminals in turn to an electrostatic machine, and observing the deflection of pith balls at the far end.[1] Telegraphs employing electrostatic attraction were the basis of early experiments in electrical telegraphy in Europe, but were abandoned as being impractical and were never developed into a useful communication system[citation needed].

http://high-street.org/uploads/359_683px-soemmerring_1810_telegraph_overview.jpg

Offline

 

#5 2017-04-28 09:45:10

Baywolfe wrote:

square wrote:

How will the people who want to make the next Netflix ever get started if they're relegated to the slow lane?  Are you happy to have your VR porn (or whatever) experience artificially limited by your ISP's greed?

You can count on Ajit Pai doing whatever he thinks will make Verizon and AT&T the most money, period.  Principle has nothing to do with it.

The same way every small business used to start in America, regionally and slowly.  Let's also remember that 1000 Mbps Wi-Fi is already a real thing.  If a local ISP in my area came in with that speed for half the price, I'd have to at least think about it.  We're still thinking of the Internet the way we used to think about our telephones.

Without Net Neutrality, wouldn't that local company never be allowed to compete with the local monopoly ISPs? Which also hold the only access for that local startup in many towns.  Why wouldn't they just throttle them too to prevent them from undercutting their thriving sales of restricted access.

Offline

 

#6 2017-04-28 09:54:46

Exactly, Johnny.

Offline

 

#7 2017-04-28 10:52:59

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Without Net Neutrality, wouldn't that local company never be allowed to compete with the local monopoly ISPs? Which also hold the only access for that local startup in many towns.  Why wouldn't they just throttle them too to prevent them from undercutting their thriving sales of restricted access.

That doesn't seem to be happening with cell phones.  I get mine for free through work, but my wife, son, and daughter-in-law have a family plan with phone, text, and unlimited streaming for $50 a month each.  Again, I'm not against the Net Neutrality law, but I don't know enough about it to be 100% for it either.  Nor am I smart enough with economics to see whether it's helping or hurting us.

BTW, my cellphone gets 60 Mbps.  If you live in a town with less than that, you probably still have telephones using #1 Crossbar.  Net Neutrality doesn't seem to be helping your technology issue.  Due to the way wi-fi is structured in Europe, every little hamlet is getting faster internet speeds than you are right here in 'merica.

Offline

 

#8 2017-04-28 10:59:21

Baywolfe wrote:

That doesn't seem to be happening with cell phones.

In the cell phone market, you have real competition. With broadband, you don't. In fact, you generally have no choice at all.

Offline

 

#9 2017-04-28 13:14:29

Smudge wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

That doesn't seem to be happening with cell phones.

In the cell phone market, you have real competition. With broadband, you don't. In fact, you generally have no choice at all.

You're still comparing the wired market to the wireless market.  I predict within 10 years cable/dsl/broadband is as robust as Blockbuster is now.

Offline

 

#10 2017-04-28 13:19:30

One of the driving forces behind the American economy over the last 100 years has been the balanced blend of capitalism & socialism.  Public utilities played a prime role in leveling the playing field giving all the same opportunity to succeed.  Out west the FREEway system rebalanced the economic power from the faltering east who went with TOLLroads - the West is now the economic engine of the nation.

All capitalists desire the socialized playing field when starting up and later abhor it when is restricts their ability to monopolize a market.  The internet WAS funded for the most part by the public and the right to information should be just that: a right.

Most importantly we need to amend the constitution to enshrine individual privacy as a constitutional right.

Offline

 

#11 2017-04-28 14:55:40

Yes seems so Em. That is the way of American business, nevermind  all the lip service.

Baywindow wrote:

That doesn't seem to be happening with cell phones.  I get mine for free through work, but my wife, son, and daughter-in-law have a family plan with phone, text, and unlimited streaming for $50 a month each.  Again, I'm not against the Net Neutrality law, but I don't know enough about it to be 100% for it either.  Nor am I smart enough with economics to see whether it's helping or hurting us.

BTW, my cellphone gets 60 Mbps.  If you live in a town with less than that, you probably still have telephones using #1 Crossbar.  Net Neutrality doesn't seem to be helping your technology issue.  Due to the way wi-fi is structured in Europe, every little hamlet is getting faster internet speeds than you are right here in America.

If you ever tried to use your cellular account to provide a gateway to the internet, you would realize right away how abhorrent the cellular service is in America. That Unlimited streaming and data don't mean jack once you cross the fair use policy, which is about 21 GB for consumer accounts. Then you get dialup speeds.

You are comparing apples and buffalo chips. The US  cell providers gets around Net Neutrality. This shows just how bad it is when the monopolies create pay to play toll services.

Heck, T-Mobile got fined $70 m a few moths ago for lying to consumers that their services where "unlimited" It was the lying that created the problem, not the throttling.


Just getting Verizon and ATT business accounts to abide by the terms they promise for increased data delivery to terminals in our vessels is fraught with peril. The throttling of services still occurs. We generally do not have this kind of throttling in many other parts of the world. We pay for what we use there and only network congestion slows it down. The European and Asian clients are aghast and very miffed when they try to rely on US cell companies to deliver what they charged them for.

Offline

 

#12 2017-04-28 15:12:26

So, then to my actual point, how is Net Neutrality helping any of the above?  And, sorry, I'm a liberal but I'm just conservative enough to believe that additional legislation will not fix any existing problems. 

And Em, the FREEway system was built for the MILITARY not for YOU.  A complex metroplex like Dallas - Fort Worth could not exist without the combination of freeways, of which we have I-30, I-35, I-45, Loop 636 and Hwy 75 to service the inner city and toll roads to handle the suburbs of which we currently have at least four.

Offline

 

#13 2017-04-28 15:36:01

Baywolfe wrote:

So, then to my actual point, how is Net Neutrality helping any of the above?  And, sorry, I'm a liberal but I'm just conservative enough to believe that additional legislation will not fix any existing problems.

They WON'T fix the problem, but that was not the topic on the table either. But if you get rid of net neutrality you will certainly make the problem WORSE, as you will open the door to the same mediocre service (or lessor) becoming more expensive as you have to 'pay up' for adequate bandwidth. When they say "pay a premium to get faster speeds" what they really mean is "pay a premium to get the speeds you used to get for a flat rate".

In a marketplace where there is almost no competition, regulation is the only way to limit price gouging by the monopoly players. The current poor state of American Internet service is the result of too little regulation rather than too much. Regulation, in a great many cases, makes markets work MORE effectively, rather than less. The people you tell you the opposite are the ones who are trying to protect a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic position.

Case in point; after the stock market and banking crashes of the late 1920s, we heavily regulated the financial markets with Glass Steagall, and other regulations designed to guarantee a measure of fairness, openess and transparancy, The uber capitalists of the day said that would destroy American's financial markets. In reality, we began the envy of the world because of the strength of our financial system. And that continued right up until we fucked it all up by de-regulating the financial markets and returning them to the way they were before Roosevelt.

Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, and oligarchies; just like we've been seeing for the last quarter century.

Where you hear people screaming about free markets the loudest is usually in places where the players have managed to get some corner on the market, which they intend and expect to exploit with a minimum of restrictions. Companies that sell in truly free market environments don't bang on the drum screaming for even fiercer competition.

Last edited by Smudge (2017-04-28 15:43:18)

Offline

 

#14 2017-04-29 08:19:00

Smudge wrote:

Baywolfe wrote:

So, then to my actual point, how is Net Neutrality helping any of the above?  And, sorry, I'm a liberal but I'm just conservative enough to believe that additional legislation will not fix any existing problems.

They WON'T fix the problem, but that was not the topic on the table either. But if you get rid of net neutrality you will certainly make the problem WORSE, as you will open the door to the same mediocre service (or lessor) becoming more expensive as you have to 'pay up' for adequate bandwidth. When they say "pay a premium to get faster speeds" what they really mean is "pay a premium to get the speeds you used to get for a flat rate".

In a marketplace where there is almost no competition, regulation is the only way to limit price gouging by the monopoly players. The current poor state of American Internet service is the result of too little regulation rather than too much. Regulation, in a great many cases, makes markets work MORE effectively, rather than less. The people you tell you the opposite are the ones who are trying to protect a monopolistic or semi-monopolistic position.

Case in point; after the stock market and banking crashes of the late 1920s, we heavily regulated the financial markets with Glass Steagall, and other regulations designed to guarantee a measure of fairness, openess and transparancy, The uber capitalists of the day said that would destroy American's financial markets. In reality, we began the envy of the world because of the strength of our financial system. And that continued right up until we fucked it all up by de-regulating the financial markets and returning them to the way they were before Roosevelt.

Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, and oligarchies; just like we've been seeing for the last quarter century.

Where you hear people screaming about free markets the loudest is usually in places where the players have managed to get some corner on the market, which they intend and expect to exploit with a minimum of restrictions. Companies that sell in truly free market environments don't bang on the drum screaming for even fiercer competition.

Again, you're thinking wired.  Cable is already experiencing its first death throes.  Ask ESPN how the cable business is going these days.
Wireless is the future and you can't monopolize wireless. 

I don't know where you are in Fargo 2 but remember this line:
"You want the old days? Go work in a coal mine. This is the future. Look, you and I got off on the wrong foot, but you seem like a good kid, so let me give you a tip. The sooner you realize there's only one business left in the world - the money business, just ones and zeros - the better off you're gonna be."

Offline

 

#15 2017-04-29 11:24:06

Baywolfe wrote:

Again, you're thinking wired.  Cable is already experiencing its first death throes.  Ask ESPN how the cable business is going these days. Wireless is the future and you can't monopolize wireless.

ESPN? What does Cable TV have to do with the regulation of Internet bandwidth rules?

I thought Johnny_Rotten's comments about wireless were on target. And I don't see Internet traffic switching primarily to wireless -- certainly none of it on the server side is going to be offered from a portable phone. And my comments about regulation of markets were both generally true, and specifically true in the case of the regulation of broadband internet access.

Unregulated markets tend toward monopoly; that was the whole point of the game we all played as kids; to show how this works experientially. Highly competitive markets (which is what we are really seeking, because of the way competition drives efficiency) are most often the result of free market forces and regulation, which prevents various anti-competitive practices, including over concentration and monopolistic behaviors.

Last edited by Smudge (2017-04-29 11:44:41)

Offline

 

#16 2017-04-30 17:16:34

Smudge wrote:

ESPN? What does Cable TV have to do with the regulation of Internet bandwidth rules?

Because Cable TV and Internet were the result of privatized regulation, meaning that the market was regulated and only the highest briber could compete against themselves in that market.

Net Neutrality follows that if you are in a Privatized Regulated market then the market forces of net neutrality are suppressed by lack of competition. Ergo if you desire to connect you must give up any and all privacy.  Separate anti-proxy regulations (you know, terrorism and shit) mean that you are forced to go grey-grid for privacy.

Offline

 

#17 2017-05-08 05:31:55

Offline

 

#18 2017-05-08 09:39:11

www.gofccyourself.com  - that didn't take long to crash.

Offline

 

#19 2017-05-08 14:58:44

Emmeran wrote:

www.gofccyourself.com  - that didn't take long to crash.

It now redirects to the govt. page.

Offline

 

#20 2017-05-10 02:36:30

Anti-competitive behavior?  You're soaking in it!

But for Comcast and Charter, the two biggest cable companies in the US, that aversion to competition is going to extend beyond cable networks and into the mobile market. The companies today announced an agreement to cooperate in their plans to sell mobile phone service, an agreement that also forbids each company from making wireless mergers and acquisitions without the other's consent for one year.

Offline

 
  • Home
  •  » High Street
  •  » Next Boondoggle Contestant - Please sign in Net Neutrality

Board footer

high-street.org