One Step Closer to...

[Fedaykin]

http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png

See: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/senator_kay_bailey_hutchison_r.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

That's the sort of porn that gives republi-cons a woody.

[cutthemdown]

I understand this is about net neutrality but I still don't understand the issue well. Republicans want it to be unregulated? so you think that will lead to providers saying this is what it costs and this is what you get? and you wouldn't just have access to the whole net?

Can someone explain this to me better?

[cutthemdown]

While dems want to force even small people to have same bandwidth speed? no matter what?

[Play2win]

Hooray for Senator Hutchinson, R-TX! The FCC has been stopped by courts, twice in efforts to impose regulation of content on the Internet. They do NOT have the power to do so, but they continue to push! Freedom of Speech transcends political affiliation. The actions of the FCC must be carefully monitored, and any attempt to impose "net neutrality" must be exposed and thwarted.

Posted by: oldtexgal | December 16, 2010 8:08 PM |Report abuse (blogs@washingtonpost.com?subject=Post%20Tech%20%2 0%7C%20%20oldtexgal%20%20%7C%20%20Sen.%20Hutchison %20moves%20to%20block%20funds%20for%20FCC%20on%20n et%20neutrality%20rules%20%20%7C%20%206253910&body=%0D%0D%0D%0D%0D================%0D?__mode=vie w%26_type=comment%26id=6253910%26blog_id=519)



:crazy:

:saywhat:

:notthissh

[Fedaykin]

I understand this is about net neutrality but I still don't understand the issue well. Republicans want it to be unregulated? so you think that will lead to providers saying this is what it costs and this is what you get? and you wouldn't just have access to the whole net?

Can someone explain this to me better?

Net Neutrality is the concept that providers must treat equally every connection -- regardless of source.

In other words, consider the following scenario:

The two biggest search engines, currently, are Bing and Google. Your ISP currently will service both Bing and Google the same way. Without net neutrality regulation, there is nothing to prevent your ISP from favoring one or the other -- potentially to the extreme of outright blocking one (or both!)

To take it to a real example. Currently Comcast is set to start billing their customers AND Level 3 (the backbone internet provider for most of the country) to stream Netflix content. (Level3 will then have to bill Netflix to recover their costs).

They are charging TWICE for the same service. Why? Because Netflix is a competitor to Comcast's cable services. Is Comcast fighting back with their own services in an ideal free market way (that a lot of idiots worship as the end all solution to all problems)? Nope! Instead they are attempting to add artificial financial barriers to their competitors by exerting their market dominance. And without network neutrality regulation, they'll get away with it too, because Comcast is the sole provider for large swaths of their user base.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/when-comcast-bullies-netflix-the-internet-loses-339

In other words, if you want a free market internet -- you want net neutrality.

[Fedaykin]

While dems want to force even small people to have same bandwidth speed? no matter what?

Is there some weird bill to force midgets to buy bandwidth that I don't know of, or are you drunk?

[cutthemdown]

Meh I figured it was scare tactics. If some provider starts not providing people with good service it will mean some competitor can steal there business. So if Comcast has policies which make people decide to not use them as a provider anymore some new smaller company with more open access would get the business.

As long as things are unregulated the free marketplace of ideas will always filter out companies that don't provide good service.

And I mean smaller, as in not as big of a company, or ISP, or whatever.

If a company wants to not offer a connection to another company that should be there choice. Then if you don't like it use someone else. If google stops showing all the searches some other search engine will and will take business from them.

[Fedaykin]

Meh I figured it was scare tactics. If some provider starts not providing people with good service it will mean some competitor can steal there business. So if Comcast has policies which make people decide to not use them as a provider anymore some new smaller company with more open access would get the business.

As long as things are unregulated the free marketplace of ideas will always filter out companies that don't provide good service.

And I mean smaller, as in not as big of a company, or ISP, or whatever.

If a company wants to not offer a connection to another company that should be there choice. Then if you don't like it use someone else. If google stops showing all the searches some other search engine will and will take business from them.

More free market worship.

Do you have any idea of the capital investment required to start up a new ISP? Do you not understand the "last mile" issue here that makes it essentially impossible for a new ISP to emerge? Do you understand that none of these networks would exist without public monies?

The "free market" only works when there is a low enough barrier to entry for new competitors. There is not in this case. The barrier to entry is nearly insurmountable. There's a reason that the only modern ISPs that exist (telcoms and cable companies) are those that had existing infrastructure (paid for in large part by joe taxpayer).

[Fedaykin]

If a company wants to not offer a connection to another company that should be there choice. Then if you don't like it use someone else. If google stops showing all the searches some other search engine will and will take business from them.

I see you still don't understand. The only way a competitor to Google could arise in that situation is if the ISPs allowed it -- which if Google pays them enough why would they?

[That One Guy]

Cable companies nearly have a monopoly on the best Internet service. You won't get it as fast from DSL or satellite so cable companies have us by the balls. We really need top tier sat internet to squash this all.

[chadta]

the phone and cable companies have gone a different way to deal with this in canada, they have all imposed caps on bandwidth, and are even reducing speeds on a certain type of traffic, the story they used was that torents were slowing down the internet, and that 5% of the users took 95% of the bandwidth, so now they have caps on everybody which means with your 40 gig a month limit you can watch an hour or so of TV a day, but anymore an your over the limit and you have to pay. Its total BS. Some companies have grandfathered in the cap, but if you make any change ot your package you get a cap. now since i have cable, internet and phone, if i want to change a channel, or add a phone service i will get a cap on my internet.

It went to the supreme court up here, bell (phone company) was trying to impose its cap on the bulk buyers before they could sell to us, and since bell owns the phone lines, most of which the tax payers paid for, they get to make the rules, and the court ruled that they could, so i suspect it will be getting worse for us up here before it gets better. i hope you guys dont suffer the same fate as us.

and since the phone company did it, the only competition the cable company went right along with it, see we dont have free market competition improving services and reducing prices, we have companies colluding to see how much they can charge for providing the least. This is what years of mergers have left us with, its not to the degree of the only 4 oil companies, but its close.

[Bronco Yoda]

Meh I figured it was scare tactics. If some provider starts not providing people with good service it will mean some competitor can steal there business. So if Comcast has policies which make people decide to not use them as a provider anymore some new smaller company with more open access would get the business.

As long as things are unregulated the free marketplace of ideas will always filter out companies that don't provide good service.

And I mean smaller, as in not as big of a company, or ISP, or whatever.

If a company wants to not offer a connection to another company that should be there choice. Then if you don't like it use someone else. If google stops showing all the searches some other search engine will and will take business from them.

You're too old to be this niave.

[cutthemdown]

I do agree with govt regulating enough to keep companies from having unfair advantage or monopolies.

[Fedaykin]

I do agree with govt regulating enough to keep companies from having unfair advantage or monopolies.

You still don't get it. The ISPs already have a monopoly (or rather a oligopoly). Net Neutrality is what will prevent them from taking advantage of that market dominance.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You still don't get it. The ISPs already have a monopoly (or rather a oligopoly). Net Neutrality is what will prevent them from taking advantage of that market dominance.

Market dominance?

Monopoly?

That's what right-wing dreams are made of.

Next up: Rehab Rush and Glenn Beck convince cutthem that these things are good for him.

[Mile High Shack]

this will affect sites like this more, we already pay more at home for faster speeds, so that won't change, the orangemane will go away b/c it will go to about dial up speed, so you will have to go to denverbroncos.com

It's the upload part, so a mom and pop site won't be able to compete, b/c they will be throttled back to speeds of below dial up, so people won't go there to shop, they will go to walmart.com instead...it's simple, big business choking out the little guy again and of course the government is all for it b/c they are getting paid. ****, most of those idiots in congress doesn't even know how the internet works.

That and this will restrict the flow of information. Do you think all these politicians love how every little thing they say can be used against them now instantaneously? No, they hate it, so they want it to go back like it use to be, so THEY control the information.

I don't mean to go all conspiracy, but this is what a lot of what it is, if you keep the public stupid and restrict how easily information flows, it's a lot easier to control the masses.

[Garcia Bronco]

I wouldn't pay for the content from any one of those sites and services. Only a moron would.

And only a moron would buy ADSL or DSL in general.

[Pony Boy]

I wouldn't pay for the content from any one of those sites and services. Only a moron would.

And only a moron would buy ADSL or DSL in general.

Yes you would, if you lived where I do, and you would pay 70 bucks a month for WildBlue satellite service (half the speed of DSL). There is also a waiting list to get on it and the only other option is dial-up. I would gladly let you call me a moron if I could get DSL.

[Pony Boy]

I understand this is about net neutrality but I still don't understand the issue well. Republicans want it to be unregulated? so you think that will lead to providers saying this is what it costs and this is what you get? and you wouldn't just have access to the whole net?
Can someone explain this to me better?

The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html

[frerottenextelway]

While dems want to force even small people to have same bandwidth speed? no matter what?

Liberals want to make it so ISP's can't block you from doing things like posting on the Orange Mane. Conservatives want to make it so that ISP's can either charge you extra or block it so they can send you to sites they own or are aligned with.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Liberals want to make it so ISP's can't block you from doing things like posting on the Orange Mane. Conservatives want to make it so that ISP's can either charge you extra or block it so they can send you to sites they own or are aligned with.

Pretty emblematic of the difference between liberals and conservatives in general, isn't it?

[elsid13]

I understand this is about net neutrality but I still don't understand the issue well. Republicans want it to be unregulated? so you think that will lead to providers saying this is what it costs and this is what you get? and you wouldn't just have access to the whole net?
Can someone explain this to me better?

The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html

The problem with that article presume that the model in place today is what will remain in place tomorrow. If you look at the trends the big ISP and Content Providers (Comcast/NBC) are attempting to maximum their revenue streams and are moving to cable business model that sets tiers of payment.

From individual firm perspective this move makes makes sense, both in terms of profit seeking and efficiency. But that doesn't mean that make sense in large economic market place for consumers or the economy. Sometime we must willing to live with a little inefficiency if make the market more open and competitive.

[Rohirrim]

Here's the secret about greedy bastards: They want it all. No matter how much they have, it's still not enough.

[cutthemdown]

Liberals want to make it so ISP's can't block you from doing things like posting on the Orange Mane. Conservatives want to make it so that ISP's can either charge you extra or block it so they can send you to sites they own or are aligned with.

Hmm we have anti trust laws in place already for that don't we? I'm not arguing yet, seriously I am trying to understand.

[elsid13]

Hmm we have anti trust laws in place already for that don't we? I'm not arguing yet, seriously I am trying to understand.

Anti-trust laws don't address this issue because it can argued that there is competition.

BTW FCC did pass the regulation, but members of Congress with ties to ISPs are attempting to overturn the ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101221/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_fcc_internet_rules

[frerottenextelway]

Hmm we have anti trust laws in place already for that don't we? I'm not arguing yet, seriously I am trying to understand.

That is was this debate is about. One side wants anti-trust laws to apply to the access of Internet content (aka net neutrality), one side doesn't.

[atomicbloke]

Hmm we have anti trust laws in place already for that don't we? I'm not arguing yet, seriously I am trying to understand.

Without net neutrality, companies like Google, Youtube, ... or movements like the Tea Party would never come in to existence. Think.

The model of the internet today is dumb pipes and smart boxes. Net neutrality wants to preserve this. But some people want to make the model be dumb boxes and smart pipes.

Net Neutrality isn't about the government vs free markets.

Its about Google / Youtube / Netflix / Skype / Yet unknown next big startup vs Comcast / Verizon / AT&T.

If Net Neutrality didn't exist in the 90ies, then Microsoft could align with Comcast to kill off then young companies like Google, Youtube, Netflix, Apple, etc. Which would mean lesser competition for them, and lesser need to innovate. You would still be stuck with Windows 95 instead of Windows 7.

If the internet ceases to be neutral, then the next Silicon Valley will not happen in USA, it will happen in Singapore, Australia or New Zealand.

[atomicbloke]

The reason there is so much chaos over Net Neutrality is because most people aren't aware of the issues. Many people don't even understand how exactly the internet works.

An ignorant populace is a boon for politicians. They can then spin the issues in to stock talking points. The can spin in to a government vs free markets issue as if Net Neutrality is somehow akin to government control of the internet or nationalization of the internet.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you believe that the story of companies like Google, Netflix and Apple are the epitome of anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.

Every innovation in Silicon Valley has come from a bunch of smart kids thinking of a big idea in their mom's basement, starting a company based on that idea in their parent's garage and eventually competing with and out performing established companies, Thats how you got Microsoft, then Google, then Youtube, then Apple.

Ending net neutrality would mean that those ideas would be nipped in the bud. And that would hurt consumers like you. Because without the threat of being outdone by a small company with a great idea, established companies would have no incentive to innovate.

[orinjkrush]

net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time.

unfortunately we have monopolies in so many industries its frightening. and they are wielding the tools of power.

the government's power to break up monopolies (like oil, steel and railroads of yesteryear) has been gutted by both Rs and their little brother Ds.

it really is time to break up the too big to fails in all the industries.

[atomicbloke]

net neutrality is the free speech issue of our time.

unfortunately we have monopolies in so many industries its frightening. and they are wielding the tools of power.

the government's power to break up monopolies (like oil, steel and railroads of yesteryear) has been gutted by both Rs and their little brother Ds.

it really is time to break up the too big to fails in all the industries.

Its not that bad.

The internet sector is fundamentally different from the oil or other heavy industries sector.

If our internet ceases to be free, it just means the center of gravity for innovation in the internet sector, which currently is Silicon Valley, will simply shift someplace else like Singapore or Melbourne.

It is easy for a firm like Google to pack their bags and move overnight to Singapore. Not so much for a firm like Chevron or GM.

Thats because in a sector like the internet, innovation happens on a daily basis. Its a sector where the fast eat the slow rather than the big eating the small.

Stunting this in the US will only mean that the center of innovation will move elsewhere where there is good infrastructure, smart people, free internet because all 3 are required to create a culture of innovation.

The internet industry will survive, its just America that will lose out.

[cutthemdown]

I'm trying to understand it but I admit I'm not there yet.

[Pony Boy]

I'm trying to understand it but I admit I'm not there yet.

It's a pretty good rule of thumb if the Federal government regulates the internet we are screwed.

[Fedaykin]

I'm trying to understand it but I admit I'm not there yet.

Do you understand the term "packet switched network"?

[cutthemdown]

Do you understand the term "packet switched network"?

Yeah I think so. That is where the information to be sent is broken down into smaller sized bytes? or packets? then it goes over the internet and is routed around whichever path is quickest. They use protocols to determine what path they take and to reassemble once they reach the intended computer or connection.

I think a do sort of understand how that works because I did 5 yrs as a computer operator for a small bank. I'm sure though i only understand the basics.

[cutthemdown]

I'm trying to figure out how companies would get away with crushing the competition unfairly, then charging us all a ton for internet or making the free stuff slow and lame. I just think some other provider would figure out a way to take that business away from say a comcast etc etc. I think we already have laws on the books to stop them.

I am open minded though and going to keep reading and listening because I admit I still am a bit confused.

[cutthemdown]

It's only a matter of time before it goes into space right? And we get content from say a dish like Direct TV or Dish Network? I know right now they are too expensive from what I have heard but eventually if there is a market they will figure out how to make it more appealing.

[atomicbloke]

I'm trying to figure out how companies would get away with crushing the competition unfairly, then charging us all a ton for internet or making the free stuff slow and lame. I just think some other provider would figure out a way to take that business away from say a comcast etc etc. I think we already have laws on the books to stop them.

I am open minded though and going to keep reading and listening because I admit I still am a bit confused.

In most localities, you don't have a choice of ISP. You are forced to choose the only ISP that has cables in your area.

If your ISP goes out of line, you don't have a choice of switching to another ISP. Unless you live in NYC or SFO.

And remember its not just the issue of ISP. If Comcast goes out of line, its not simply a matter of switching ISPs. Because Comcast then forces Level 3 to go out of line too to protect its own business. Level 3 provides the backbone infrastructure in the US over which your Comcast provides you service. You may be lucky enough to have an alternative to Comcast, but there is no alternative to Level 3's backbone in your area. Relaying the optical fiber grid to create a secondary backbone is a multi-billion dollar operation and is ridiculously redundant. And it won't happen overnight. And by then the Internet firms would have moved elsewhere.

Just remember Net Neutrality is not about federal government vs free markets, its about Google, Youtube etc (Internet firms) vs Comcast, Verizon, etc (Internet providers).

[atomicbloke]

It's only a matter of time before it goes into space right? And we get content from say a dish like Direct TV or Dish Network? I know right now they are too expensive from what I have heard but eventually if there is a market they will figure out how to make it more appealing.

Cable TV yes.

But internet? Huge data transfers can't happen over 3G or 4G.

[Bronco Yoda]

In most localities, you don't have a choice of ISP. You are forced to choose the only ISP that has cables in your area.

If your ISP goes out of line, you don't have a choice of switching to another ISP. Unless you live in NYC or SFO.

And remember its not just the issue of ISP. If Comcast goes out of line, its not simply a matter of switching ISPs. Because Comcast then forces Level 3 to go out of line too to protect its own business. Level 3 provides the backbone infrastructure in the US over which your Comcast provides you service. You may be lucky enough to have an alternative to Comcast, but there is no alternative to Level 3's backbone in your area. Relaying the optical fiber grid to create a secondary backbone is a multi-billion dollar operation and is ridiculously redundant. And it won't happen overnight. And by then the Internet firms would have moved elsewhere.

Just remember Net Neutrality is not about federal government vs free markets, its about Google, Youtube etc (Internet firms) vs Comcast, Verizon, etc (Internet providers).

Very good posts Atom. And just let me add to this that we're the one's that will be in the cross fire here. And Americans won't come out as the survivors.

[Garcia Bronco]

I'm trying to understand it but I admit I'm not there yet.

its open and free. ISP's currently control bandwidth, they aren't the only ones, but they are the main ones. the isp's want to make more money by directing content.

[Taco John]

Meh I figured it was scare tactics. If some provider starts not providing people with good service it will mean some competitor can steal there business.

So if Comcast has policies which make people decide to not use them as a provider anymore some new smaller company with more open access would get the business.

As long as things are unregulated the free marketplace of ideas will always filter out companies that don't provide good service.

And I mean smaller, as in not as big of a company, or ISP, or whatever.

If a company wants to not offer a connection to another company that should be there choice. Then if you don't like it use someone else. If google stops showing all the searches some other search engine will and will take business from them.

Great post! :thumbs:

[Taco John]

Do you have any idea of the capital investment required to start up a new ISP? Do you not understand the "last mile" issue here that makes it essentially impossible for a new ISP to emerge? Do you understand that none of these networks would exist without public monies?


Simple: don't give them public monies. Problem solved.

The capital investment required is why the owners of these networks should be allowed to set whatever rules they want to set. It's called a "business." They own a network access "business." These are not publically owned resources. If public money has been contributed to their networks, then it's simple: fire the person who gave public money without an up front contract that protects the investment. You can't come in after the fact and change the rules of the investment. That destroys progress and damages the economy.

[Taco John]

In most localities, you don't have a choice of ISP. You are forced to choose the only ISP that has cables in your area.



In the 90's this was true. In this current decade, you can get any number of satellite options.

[atomicbloke]

Simple: don't give them public monies. Problem solved.

The capital investment required is why the owners of these networks should be allowed to set whatever rules they want to set. It's called a "business." They own a network access "business." These are not publically owned resources. If public money has been contributed to their networks, then it's simple: fire the person who gave public money without an up front contract that protects the investment. You can't come in after the fact and change the rules of the investment. That destroys progress and damages the economy.

Clearly you have no idea how the internet economy works.

You think its Level 3 that's setting rules. But they are not.

Comcast et al are setting the rules. They own the ISP, but they don't own the backbone.

[atomicbloke]

It comes down to this: Google pays their ISP for the bits they send. I pay my ISP for the bits I request. If I happen to request them from Google, my ISP now says Google should have to pay them to deliver it, despite the fact that I *already* paid them to receive them, no matter where they came from.


As we look on things right now, Comcast already has a phone offering, a TV offering, and a net offering. They have their own streaming movie service that no one uses because it sucks. Without net neutrality, they can choose to block Netflix packets completely, or slow them to the point where they might as well be blocked, while their movie service just hums along. How long does it take until this circumvents the "free market" and the will of the people, by making Comcast's movie service more popular than Netflix, not because of content, or value, but simply artificially enhanced usability? How long til Netflix dies, because every single ISP in the country slows them down in favor of their own service, which gets priority traffic? How does that constitute a "free market" at all? Especially when Comcast can offer their service at a loss, undercutting what Netflix can offer? How is that the best company coming out ahead?


This becomes even more worrisome now that Comcast is buying NBC. We now have content provider and content delivery in one. How long until they start charging based on the origin of the content, not just its delivery? Will NBC produced shows, movies, and content be delivered cheaper and faster, while everyone else's are slowed down, unless they pay up?


The argument is usually made that people can just "switch providers, if they don't like what they do", but for a vast majority of Americans, that either isn't possible, or isn't viable. I have exactly one choice Comcast. .... thanks to lobbying on the part of Comcast, cable franchises in my state are set at the state level, meaning I can no longer even petition my local government for a change, nor vote for anything different..... Comcast is the only company allowed by my government to provide broadband internet service in my state.... and the comcast service piggybacks on the telco, which was laid out by public money....



I also like the argument put forward by some that we could just "do without broadband". Yes, I am sure we could, if we wanted to give up our chance for a real future. As more government functions and services are placed online, more people go to school online, or do their jobs online, a good high speed connection is not just desirable but required.

[atomicbloke]

The capital investment required is why the owners of these networks should be allowed to set whatever rules they want to set. It's called a "business." They own a network access "business." These are not publically owned resources. .

You do realize that all cable companies run "their" wires over public lands, right? If they don't want us to have a say, they need to buy up all the land they run their cables over. Otherwise, when they negotiate the use of our public lands, we can demand of them anything we like. We already have the power to force the telcos to do as we see fit. We also have the moral authority to do so, as they negotiated with us for the use of public right-of-ways and public airwaves. Again, if they don't like it, let them buy the property they run their cables over.

This is all just basic contract and property rights. I know you have libertarian leanings, and let me tell you, this is one reason I distrust libertarians. Libertarians seem to be all for property rights and contract law, except when the property in question is held by a group of people they don't like, i.e. "The government." That is to say, a group of people forming a corporation get full protection, but a group of people forming a government do not appear to have any property rights at all under the actual working libertarian philosophy. But a government is nothing more than a group of individuals. I don't understand how libertarian logic works, where one group of people should have absolute property rights, but another group should not.

You do realize that most local governments chose a middle path, letting the cable companies have monopoly rights to run the wires in exchange for concessions from the cable companies? Why do you not support the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts?

You and I and anyone can not trivially form a corporation with any power, or marketplace penetration. The elite have raised the barrier to entry. There is no real free market, there is only their market, and if you want to play, you do so by their rules and at their whims.

I suggest that the corporations have already entered contracts with local governments, in order to gain monopoly rights to run their wires, and those contracts offer us some control over their wires. If the cable companies didn't want that, they didn't have to enter into contracts.

I'm not saying the government should have absolute power over everyone's property. I'm saying, the government should have power over public property like roads and sidewalks.

We did require that wire owners who entered into monopoly deals to lay said wire on public property share those wires at the same rate they charged their own internal divisions that used those wires. So, if the companies internal ISP is charged for use of the wires at a certain rate, then anyone should be able to buy bandwidth in bulk at that rate. That was part of the deal the telecos and cable companies agreed to, but they didn't like it, and so they paid to have the law changed to negate their contractual agreements.

That is basic contract law: you do what you agreed to do. The cable companies agreed to government oversight. No one forced them to agree to that. They should not be allowed to weasel out of their agreements.

[atomicbloke]

I'm trying to figure out how companies would get away with crushing the competition unfairly, then charging us all a ton for internet or making the free stuff slow and lame. I just think some other provider would figure out a way to take that business away from say a comcast etc etc. I think we already have laws on the books to stop them.

I am open minded though and going to keep reading and listening because I admit I still am a bit confused.

First off, most cable companies have locally guaranteed franchise agreements (basically, a local monopoly). This is why, for example, AT&T provides phone service in Reno but Sprint provides phone service in Las Vegas, or why Charter is the cable TV provider in Reno but Cox is the cable provider in Las Vegas (to use a set of examples I'm personally familiar with). What the telcos get out of these arrangements is fairly obvious - they can safely build into a neighborhood in their franchise area and know that a competitor won't swoop in and render their several million dollar investment in that neighborhood moot. In theory, the local areas get the guarantee that there will actually be build outs in the local area, even in areas that might not warrant a build-out if competition was allowed in that area, as well as some control over pricing. Point being, CableCompany isn't running that copper to homes "at their own cost", with all the risk such a build-out would entail - they're running it because there's a government-backed guarantee of market presence in that neighborhood when they're done.

Also, cable companies don't "own" the copper - their lessees, with local municipalities serving as lessors of the right-of-ways the cable companies dug through to lay that cable. Consequently, we're talking about a change to the terms of the lease. Why can't we handle this at the local level then? Well, we could, but we'd be looking at several thousand different interpretations of "net neutrality", one for each municipality, which would be a royal pain for everyone involved. What do telcos get out of net neutrality? The same thing they're getting now - the ability to price Internet service at whatever rate they think the market will bear without concern or liability over the specific content that flows over their network. We'd simply be codifying the status quo. What do the people gain? The knowledge that Internet service will be billed the same way as phone, electrical, and natural gas service - it doesn't matter what you're using it for, just how much of it you wish to consume at a given moment. What do the people lose? Well, if ISPs were allowed to engage in rent-seeking behavior and charge discriminatory pricing for specific sites (i.e. charging people more for Facebook access), some markets that might be marginal for broadband service might become more intrinsically profitable since they could extract more value from the broadband connection. Whether anyone would find discriminated service valuable, though, remains to be seen.

[cutthemdown]

You do realize that all cable companies run "their" wires over public lands, right? If they don't want us to have a say, they need to buy up all the land they run their cables over. Otherwise, when they negotiate the use of our public lands, we can demand of them anything we like. We already have the power to force the telcos to do as we see fit. We also have the moral authority to do so, as they negotiated with us for the use of public right-of-ways and public airwaves. Again, if they don't like it, let them buy the property they run their cables over.

This is all just basic contract and property rights. I know you have libertarian leanings, and let me tell you, this is one reason I distrust libertarians. Libertarians seem to be all for property rights and contract law, except when the property in question is held by a group of people they don't like, i.e. "The government." That is to say, a group of people forming a corporation get full protection, but a group of people forming a government do not appear to have any property rights at all under the actual working libertarian philosophy. But a government is nothing more than a group of individuals. I don't understand how libertarian logic works, where one group of people should have absolute property rights, but another group should not.

You do realize that most local governments chose a middle path, letting the cable companies have monopoly rights to run the wires in exchange for concessions from the cable companies? Why do you not support the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts?

You and I and anyone can not trivially form a corporation with any power, or marketplace penetration. The elite have raised the barrier to entry. There is no real free market, there is only their market, and if you want to play, you do so by their rules and at their whims.

I suggest that the corporations have already entered contracts with local governments, in order to gain monopoly rights to run their wires, and those contracts offer us some control over their wires. If the cable companies didn't want that, they didn't have to enter into contracts.

I'm not saying the government should have absolute power over everyone's property. I'm saying, the government should have power over public property like roads and sidewalks.

We did require that wire owners who entered into monopoly deals to lay said wire on public property share those wires at the same rate they charged their own internal divisions that used those wires. So, if the companies internal ISP is charged for use of the wires at a certain rate, then anyone should be able to buy bandwidth in bulk at that rate. That was part of the deal the telecos and cable companies agreed to, but they didn't like it, and so they paid to have the law changed to negate their contractual agreements.

That is basic contract law: you do what you agreed to do. The cable companies agreed to government oversight. No one forced them to agree to that. They should not be allowed to weasel out of their agreements.

Well as long as the public entity says anyone who wants to run a competing cable is more then welcome to. Did govt money pay for Verizon, comcast etc to run there cables? Was that subsidized? Or were the lines my verizon fiber optic travels on paid for by someone other then verizon.

Also I want to say this is the first thread in like yrs where I could actually say I don't get it, ask questions, and not have it turn into a joke. LABF tried but really I am actually learning some stuff right now.

[atomicbloke]

Well as long as the public entity says anyone who wants to run a competing cable is more then welcome to. Did govt money pay for Verizon, comcast etc to run there cables? Was that subsidized? Or were the lines my verizon fiber optic travels on paid for by someone other then verizon.

Also I want to say this is the first thread in like yrs where I could actually say I don't get it, ask questions, and not have it turn into a joke. LABF tried but really I am actually learning some stuff right now.

Exactly.

Except currently anyone wanting to run a competing cable is now not welcome.

Thats why a lot of mom and pop ISPs folded at the beginning of the decade. Thats the reason there is an artificial monopoly because one ISP lobbied the government for guarantees.

Its like your electricity provider. If tomorrow they hypothetically modify their ampere frequency so that only refrigerators, television, other electrical appliances manufactured by a certain firm will be able to run on that Hz frequency and not others. If you cry foul, they tell you that you are free to get your electricity from another provider. Can you switch?

Exactly.

So we either go back in time and undo the government granted monopolies, or make the recipients of the monopoly adhere to the terms of the contracts. Anti-competitive laws exist for a reason.

[Mile High Shack]

Simple: don't give them public monies. Problem solved.

The capital investment required is why the owners of these networks should be allowed to set whatever rules they want to set. It's called a "business." They own a network access "business." These are not publically owned resources. If public money has been contributed to their networks, then it's simple: fire the person who gave public money without an up front contract that protects the investment. You can't come in after the fact and change the rules of the investment. That destroys progress and damages the economy.

wow TJ, you are usually more informed than this.....

[Mile High Shack]

Exactly.

Except currently anyone wanting to run a competing cable is now not welcome.

Thats why a lot of mom and pop ISPs folded at the beginning of the decade. Thats the reason there is an artificial monopoly because one ISP lobbied the government for guarantees.

Its like your electricity provider. If tomorrow they hypothetically modify their ampere frequency so that only refrigerators, television, other electrical appliances manufactured by a certain firm will be able to run on that Hz frequency and not others. If you cry foul, they tell you that you are free to get your electricity from another provider. Can you switch?

Exactly.

So we either go back in time and undo the government granted monopolies, or make the recipients of the monopoly adhere to the terms of the contracts. Anti-competitive laws exist for a reason.

this dude is freakin' nailing it

this is one of the biggest issues of our times and there isn't enough people talking about it.

The ruling yesterday was not good and not bad either....I'm still worried about the government getting control of the internet.

[cutthemdown]

Exactly.

Except currently anyone wanting to run a competing cable is now not welcome.

Thats why a lot of mom and pop ISPs folded at the beginning of the decade. Thats the reason there is an artificial monopoly because one ISP lobbied the government for guarantees.

Its like your electricity provider. If tomorrow they hypothetically modify their ampere frequency so that only refrigerators, television, other electrical appliances manufactured by a certain firm will be able to run on that Hz frequency and not others. If you cry foul, they tell you that you are free to get your electricity from another provider. Can you switch?

Exactly.

So we either go back in time and undo the government granted monopolies, or make the recipients of the monopoly adhere to the terms of the contracts. Anti-competitive laws exist for a reason.

Don't we already have laws on books for stopping the electric company from doing something like that? Can't we just use same apparatus?

[cutthemdown]

this dude is freakin' nailing it

this is one of the biggest issues of our times and there isn't enough people talking about it.

The ruling yesterday was not good and not bad either....I'm still worried about the government getting control of the internet.

You realize he is for govt regulation right?

[elsid13]

Don't we already have laws on books for stopping the electric company from doing something like that? Can't we just use same apparatus?

A lot of the laws were gutted in the deregulation phase that occurred over the last ten years and ones on the books are either state specific or local, which can not handle a business that worldwide.

[cutthemdown]

The internet model is that no govt can regulate it because it defies top down regulation. Seems like it is working fine right now.

[Mile High Shack]

The internet model is that no govt can regulate it because it defies top down regulation. Seems like it is working fine right now.

exactly, but they want to change it

[Fedaykin]

In the 90's this was true. In this current decade, you can get any number of satellite options.

Atomicbloke has already beaten me to task of pointing out the uninformed and naive nature of your other contribution to this conversation, but I'll add that Sat Internet is not and will not be a substitute for wired broadband anytime in the near future.

Satellite Internet is, as the name suggests, internet provided to the end user via satellite relay. Now, in order for that to work you have two options:

* Geostationary Satellites (geosats)
* Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellites

Now, with geosats, you have an average of only about 512Kbit downstream bandwidth (whereas cable will provide upwards of 20,000kbit) and a paultry 128kbit upstream (whereas cable will typically provide ~3,000kbit). However, the real problem with geostationary sats is latency -- or the time it takes for information to get from the satellite to the receiver. A typical one way latency in this situation is about 1,000ms (1 second) whereas a wired network can provide a latency of < 100ms. Typical two way latency (the important measure) is twice that, or 2 seconds for a geosat and <200ms for a wired network. It gets worse if you want to communicate with someone else who is also using sat internet, because then you have multiple trips back and forth between potentially multiple geosats -- causing many times that basic latency.

Why is this latency a problem -- because it makes anything but streaming media (e.g. television signals) difficult or impossible to make workable. Any application that requires interactivity (e.g. games, voip, rich web apps -- in other words the interesting parts of the modern internet) rely on short latency times to work. Ever seen a news broadcast where the conversation is over a sat connection? Notice the 2-3 pause between speakers?

Now, the other option, LEO sats, fix the latency issue (simply because they are closer to the ground) but cannot provide a bandwidth significantly above that of a modem. They typically provide about 64kbit of bandwidth (whereas modems topped out at about 56kbit)

And no, no amount of "free market" magic will fix these problems anytime soon -- these are problems created by fundamental limitations of the system. The latency of a geosat is constrained by the speed of light -- which is not going to be fixed barring humans finding a way to create wormholes. Wired networks, on the other hand, can produce near 0 latency because the only way latency is created on a wired network is through the need for switching (redirecting of the current).

Sat Internet is useful only to those who have no other option -- like my users in Alaska =)

[cutthemdown]

Man the more I research the more I am against the FCC over stepping there authority to regulate the interenet with there net neutrailty BS. George Soros has his hands all over this crap.

[atomicbloke]

Man the more I research the more I am against the FCC over stepping there authority to regulate the interenet with there net neutrailty BS. George Soros has his hands all over this crap.

Your suspicions are correct. George Soros is the silent architect of this government takeover tsunami.

And all this Net Neutrality stuff is actually just the first step in a secret plan drawn up by Obama and Rev Wright to eventually execute all hardworking honest tax paying white patriots in gas chambers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Mr.Meanie]

Your suspicions are correct. George Soros is the silent architect of this government takeover tsunami.

And all this Net Neutrality stuff is actually just the first step in a secret plan drawn up by Obama and Rev Wright to eventually execute all hardworking honest tax paying white patriots in gas chambers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I knew it!! Obama/Wright just lost my vote in 2012!

[frerottenextelway]

Man the more I research the more I am against the FCC over stepping there authority to regulate the interenet with there net neutrailty BS. George Soros has his hands all over this crap.

You would be one who would find a way to be pro-censorship.

[Garcia Bronco]

there is a bunch of hysteria in this thread.

if you don't like what comcast is doing then change providers. if you don't like what the providers are doing then build your own network.

[elsid13]

there is a bunch of hysteria in this thread.

if you don't like what comcast is doing then change providers. if you don't like what the providers are doing then build your own network.

Do you happen to have couple 100 million dollars plus laying around to help build the o-mane ISP?

[chadta]

if you don't like what comcast is doing then change providers. if you don't like what the providers are doing then build your own network.

you currently have more feasible options to avoid driving a gasoline powered car than you do avoiding the big isp's.

[cutthemdown]

If a big ISP started doing anything that was construed as violating anti trust laws you just break Verizon up into smaller companies. But if you let govt start regulating you never get it back.

[cutthemdown]

you currently have more feasible options to avoid driving a gasoline powered car than you do avoiding the big isp's.

What are the big ISP currently doing that warrants giving this power to the FCC? It's all based on what people think they will do? My internet seems to be working just fine right now.

[TonyR]

Your suspicions are correct. George Soros is the silent architect of this government takeover tsunami.

And all this Net Neutrality stuff is actually just the first step in a secret plan drawn up by Obama and Rev Wright to eventually execute all hardworking honest tax paying white patriots in gas chambers.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

LOL But you have to be careful with posts like this because people like dramallama will actually think you're being serious!

[frerottenextelway]

What are the big ISP currently doing that warrants giving this power to the FCC? It's all based on what people think they will do? My internet seems to be working just fine right now.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/

(snipped)

Just a week before the FCC holds a vote on whether to apply fairness rules to some of the nation’s internet service providers, two companies that sell their services to the country’s largest cellular companies showed off a different vision of the future: one where you’ll have to pay extra to watch YouTube or use Facebook.

The companies, Allot Communications and Openet — suppliers to large wireless companies including AT&T and Verizon — showed off a new product in a web seminar Tuesday, which included a PowerPoint presentation (1.5-MB .pdf) (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2010/12/final_slide_deck.pdf) that was sent to Wired by a trusted source (page 7 below).

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/epicenter/2010/12/dpi_integrated-660x494.gif
The idea? Make it possible for your wireless provider to monitor everything you do online and charge you extra for using Facebook, Skype or Netflix. For instance, in the seventh slide of the above PowerPoint, a Vodafone user would be charged two cents per MB for using Facebook, three euros a month to use Skype and $0.50 monthly for a speed-limited version of YouTube. But traffic to Vodafone’s services would be free, allowing the mobile carrier to create video services that could undercut NetFlix on price.

This is what you support? Really?

It's like communist China, except where the corporations are now effectively the government.

Yay, block my access to internet content!!!

[Play2win]

Exactly, there is (could be) over-regulation going on, but it won't be done by the government-- it will be done by the corporations!

[cutthemdown]

You would be one who would find a way to be pro-censorship.

LOL you think I am a censorship guy? I am a marketplace of ideas guy for sure.

[atomicbloke]

Anyone else find it ironic that the 3 Democrats on the FCC voted for the conservative position on Net Neutrality and the 2 Republicans on the FCC voted for the liberal position?

[Bronco Yoda]

They're trying to trick us... those sneaky bastards!

[cutthemdown]

This is what you support? Really?

It's like communist China, except where the corporations are now effectively the government.

Yay, block my access to internet content!!!

Ok but that is wireless phone stuff. Competition between the wireless cellular carriers can take care of any problems. If one cellular carrier is too expensive some other service will crop up right?

[Garcia Bronco]

Again...you guys think you are entitled to something. We can have the Government build a network. In fact that's how it started out. So write your Congressmen. Start a campaign..just don't sit on your ass and bitch.

[Fedaykin]

Again...you guys think you are entitled to something. We can have the Government build a network. In fact that's how it started out. So write your Congressmen. Start a campaign..just don't sit on your ass and b****.

I see you are still the captain of the dunce brigade.

The first step in fighting anything is communication. Ironically, net neutrality is about making sure one of the best methods of communication stays useful for that purpose.

[Garcia Bronco]

I see you are still the captain of the dunce brigade.

The first step in fighting anything is communication. Ironically, net neutrality is about making sure one of the best methods of communication stays useful for that purpose.

i don't disagree, but what makes you think you have a right to free communication on someone elses gateway? Its not yours. The only way we can get what you want is yo have a public one. A public option. lol

[snowspot66]

Again...you guys think you are entitled to something. We can have the Government build a network. In fact that's how it started out. So write your Congressmen. Start a campaign..just don't sit on your ass and b****.

So paying twice for the same service is an entitlement complex?

[Fedaykin]

i don't disagree, but what makes you think you have a right to free communication on someone elses gateway? Its not yours. The only way we can get what you want is yo have a public one. A public option. lol

First: There is no such thing as a private network. They are all constructed with substantial public funds. We've been over this dozens of times.

Second: I don't expect anything free. I do expect that I'll only be charged a single (i.e. the provider won't double dip) reasonable fee.

[That One Guy]

Now I'm completely ignorant on the topic but who does own the infrastructure of cables that the cable company uses? If that is privately owned, the monopoly should be busted. If it's publicly owned, there must be some way to more easily open that up to competition.

Just as I scoffed when they claimed a few years ago that ipods and radio were competition with sat radio, sat tv is no competition to cable tv.

[chadta]

More than 300,000 Americans have signed the petition opposing the "Internet Blacklist Bill" -- the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA).



http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/wyden/?akid=59.8854.e-Ds5Y&rd=1&t=1

[chadta]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/07/internet-expensive-surfing-canadians.html

its getting worse up here

[chadta]

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2011/01/27/technology-internet-usage-based-billing-mezei.html

Side note, but totally related, Bell canada which is the start of all problems up here, recently began offering its fibe TV services, which use the same lines as the internet that they claim is overrun with traffic, and need to shape or risk it crashing. Fibe tv uses about 1tb of data per month, per user.