Re: Net Neutrality
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:59 am
Maybe our throttle will be throttled, effectively increasing internet speed.
Given the condescending tone of your post, I fear you're not really interested in debate or discussion. In the interest of spreading knowledge, I'm going to compile what I know here (complete with sources! ).Flatfingers wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:10 amI don't think it's correct to say that some "net neutrality" regulations meaningfully similar to those applied over the past 2 years were in effect earlier. If that were true, then there would have been even less justification for the FCC to impose 1934 POTS-era rules on Internet providers.
For all services, though.
and providing the same service 5 times with different prices depending on who asks is not fraudulent?Flatfingers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:47 amThe FCC imposing and verifying compliance with "rules that prohibit carriers from variably pricing broadband based on the origin of data" is not different in any meaningful way from "telling private businesses what they're allowed to charge for the goods and services they provide." These are just two different ways of saying the same thing: ISPs are to be prevented from performing legal business actions.
then the loud NN enemies may start with an explanation how the n mbit tISPs sell to their customers converging on a few sites (which all pay for their full bandwith as well) somehow is not bearable until the minute the offending site coughs up some additional cash.Flatfingers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:47 amBut that is as far as regulation should go. Pricing should be controlled by the businesses who are subject to market forces, not by unaccountable DC lawyers. If you want to object to this by saying regulators need control because ISPs "might" do something bad, I will counter that pricing needs to remain with consumer-dependent businesses because price regulators "might" not have the first inkling of a clue about the negative business impacts -- that reduce consumer choice -- of preventing varied pricing based on usage, and they "might" abuse their regulatory power just as people in other agencies have.
Let me give several analogies. In these examples, you live on an island where there is only one town, and there is only one store on this town. There is no way off this island. Now, here's the fun part: the person that owns The Store hates you. The Store owner also owns a floral business on the side, which is your main job. Their floral business is roughly as large as yours, and it's healthy competition. (And before you say "You're describing a monopoly, ISPs are not monopolies", keep in mind that in many places in the US, there is only one ISP available to the public. Where I live, the only ISP available is Windstream. They've made deals with the local politicians to forbid anyone else from entering. They can jack the prices of service up as high as they want - and they do - and they don't care about providing quality service because there isn't any competition. For all intents and purposes, Windstream has a monopoly where I live. It's like this with other ISPs all over the country.)Flatfingers wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:47 amThe FCC imposing and verifying compliance with "rules that prohibit carriers from variably pricing broadband based on the origin of data" is not different in any meaningful way from "telling private businesses what they're allowed to charge for the goods and services they provide." These are just two different ways of saying the same thing: ISPs are to be prevented from performing legal business actions.
Read above. I explained how it is not legal in this context. Store owners are permitted to charge different prices for their services and goods. A can of chicken may cost twice as much as a can of meat, and this is legal. However, everyone that walks into that store must pay the same price for that can of beef as everyone else. Charging people more or less based on who they are - which is what we're talking about - is illegal.(And yes, businesses setting pricing for their goods and services is legal -- in fact, it's a necessity in a capitalistic system. [...] )
...Except Ajit Pai closed the investigations into the illegal actions of Verizon and AT&T earlier this year. He would continue to do so as long as he's in office - but he won't need to now that all the laws protecting consumers are gone. The FCC will no longer investigate and block significant anti-competitive actions. If they would, the FCC chairman wouldn't have shut down the investigations.I agree with critics when they observe that ISPs are imperfect and will sometimes get so big that they try to unfairly block competition. When this is the case, there is a remedy: the Federal Trade Commission exists to investigate and, where reasonably confirmed, block significant anti-competitive actions.
..."Might"? Did you read my post? They've been doing this for over a decade - and, usually, not getting away with it. I even provided a huge list of sources to back it up. If they tried this hard when it was illegal, do you really think they'll suddenly stop because it isn't illegal anymore? That implies that they were only doing things because they were illegal, which doesn't match your interpretation of Big Government being more evil than Big Corporations.But that is as far as regulation should go. Pricing should be controlled by the businesses who are subject to market forces, not by unaccountable DC lawyers. If you want to object to this by saying regulators need control because ISPs "might" do something bad
I'm pleased with this, Flatfingers. I had gathered as much, but the part you're missing is that there isn't any regulatory oversight anymore. Everything that was in place is gone.In short, I acknowledge the failings of ISPs and I support a responsibly limited regulatory oversight of all businesses, including ISPs, to prevent fraud and significantly anti-competitive actions.
The anti-NN position would be considerably stronger if its proponents could equally acknowledge that a complete lack of regulation has more dangers than what we've had in place since 2005.The pro-NN position would be considerably stronger if its proponents could equally acknowledge that more regulation also has dangers.
The FCC has previously defined the following objectives:"The FCC derives its jurisdiction to facilitate the deployment of broadband to Americans in Section 706 in the Telecommunications act of 1996. In this section the code states that the FCC is to “encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans.”
https://www.inverse.com/article/39671-i ... fast-lanesIt’s only been a week since the Federal Communications Commission repealed net neutrality protections and Republican lawmakers are already trying to set legislation into motion to cement the controversial ruling.
On December 19, representative Marsha Blackburn proposed the “Open Internet Preservation Act” in a video on Twitter. In the announcement, the Tennessee Republican touts that this bill will prevent blocking and throttling of legal web content, but she elides that this would bar the FCC from creating any rules that go beyond those requirements. Blackburn’s proposition would also keep any states from enacting any of their own net neutrality legislation.
While Blackburn’s statement on Twitter made it seem like the goal of the Open Internet Preservation Act is to restore the net neutrality regulations previously in place through the FCC’s rules, the bill would actually take away key protections. Most importantly, it would still allow for the creation of Internet “fast lanes,” which means everyone gets a baseline browsing speed but ISPs can charge users or websites more for access to faster internet.
You are talking about Net Neutrality, not net neutrality (capitals matter). I provided sources to different government documents showing that net neutrality was, in fact, in place before then - not as law, but as policies to keep corporations in line.masseffect7 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:28 pmThose in favor of net neutrality would do well to not to blow the implications of the changes out of proportion. Some of the predictions of impending doom and peril as a result of policy changes are quite frankly embarrassing and make it hard for those on the other side to accept your arguments. The fact is that net neutrality was not in place until 2015. This forum was around for a few years prior to that.