PDA

View Full Version : President Obama urges the FCC to treat the internet as a utility




aGameOfThrones
11-10-2014, 09:58 AM
President Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality for what seems like ages, which explains why he just did what he did. In a just-posted YouTube video (and Medium post) and he's just asked the FCC do what online activists have been hoping for -- he's urging the commission to officially classify internet service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, which would essentially mean internet access would be governed the same way telephone service is. Doing so would also mean the potentially hairy legal loophole that could give rise of prioritized service and online fast lanes wouldn't be an issue anymore, either. Huzzah! As the president notes in that brief video address (which you can peek at after the jump) though, the FCC is an independent body and he can't make them do anything. It's on Chairman Tom Wheeler and his ilk to take a stand, though whether or not they will is still up in the air.

But let's back up for a moment: why all the fuss about Title II? The juiciest, most pertinent bit lives in subsection 202, which states that common carriers (in this case, ISPs) wouldn't be able to "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Not the densest legalese we've ever seen, but President Obama's breaks things down a bit more in a blog post -- if things go his way, ISPs won't be able to block access to legal content, create so-called "slow lanes" or intentionally manipulate data speeds on a whim. Since sunlight is the best disinfectant, he's also pushing for greater transparency for things like peering agreements (like when Netflix cut connectivity deals with Comcast and more), which have the potential to get a little too fraught for regulators' liking. Long story short, ISPs would start to resemble those vaunted "dumb pipes" many of us have been clamoring for, though AT&T once argued that not even a Title II reclassification would be enough to keep providers from prioritizing some customers over others.

While net neutrality advocates have a small victory to celebrate, we're starting to hear from service providers that are definitely less than pleased. Consider this tidbit from a new post on Verizon's Public Policy blog:

"Verizon supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet's success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation."


http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/10/obama-net-neutrality/

francisco
11-10-2014, 12:45 PM
I hope that Ron and Rand both weigh in on this.

Another article on same topic:


Obama says broadband Internet should be regulated like utility

President Barack Obama urged the government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating Internet the same way, also known as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, so Internet service providers would be unable "to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas."

http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/

Madison320
11-10-2014, 02:15 PM
I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?

HOLLYWOOD
11-10-2014, 02:20 PM
Turning the Internet and ISP into yet another, communications media controlled by government. One doesn't have to look any further that the revolving door of government officials in the FCC and telco executive jobs-packages.

Look for your future internet bill to mimic; your home Phone, Mobile Phone, or Utility Bills full of Taxes, Fees, and surcharges.

Obama is just the Marketing-Sales-Marionette... this has come from those that want it all... and they'll get, if the people let them steal even more.

It's all working fine... a private party and an internet provider. When has government involvement cost the private citizen less for a service?

Occam's Banana
11-10-2014, 02:46 PM
Obama says broadband Internet should be regulated like utility

President Barack Obama urged the government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve "a free and open Internet."

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of [...] treating broadband services like utilities [...]

Well, I, for one, am looking forward to an Internet that is as "free and open" as "the" electric company ... :rolleyes:

NorfolkPCSolutions
11-10-2014, 03:44 PM
Don't worry. 'Murrica just voted in a Republican majority in the House and Senate, so it's aww-right

Acala
11-10-2014, 04:48 PM
It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.

idiom
11-10-2014, 06:04 PM
I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?

Cities give monopolies on the last mile.

In New Zealand we have the last mile of fibre treated as a utility and owned and operated by little heavily regulated companies, (to avoid digging up the street continuously). The ISPs all compete on a level playing field and rent the connection to your house.

Remember how many ISPs there were when dialup on copper lines was the tech du jour, because phone lines were a utility?

It has been a massive improvement.

idiom
11-10-2014, 06:05 PM
It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.

Government granted monopolies are the main problem. This should be repeated over and over.

phill4paul
11-10-2014, 06:17 PM
I've got the multiple choice of one phone company. Freedom.

tangent4ronpaul
11-10-2014, 08:48 PM
We have 2 ISP's that have been granted a monopoly. They both keep their rates in the stratosphere and very close to each other. Both provide high speed "unlimited" internet, but one of them throttles your speed if you use too much. Both serve up 2,000 channels that I never watch and don't want but have to pay for and about 12 that I do watch and want. There are a few channels I'd like but they charge an extra $10-15 a month to get those. Both provide phone service.

So I subscribe so I can get high speed Internet access. I'm paying for that "unlimited" bandwidth. Except it depends on who I'm connecting to.
I subscribe to Netflix because I like unlimited movies and shows but if I take advantage of my "unlimited" bandwidth, I find my bandwidth throttled down so there is massive lag, it gets jumpy and frequently disconnects and I have to re-start movies and shows. Why? Well, because Verizon wants to sell me movies at $4.50 a pop to view once, or sometimes rent for up to 2 days. If I pay them $15 I can "own" it - that means they won't delete it off the DVR. Now Netflix is having to pay ISP's and pass that cost on to me, so Verizon doesn't pull this BS. Yes, that means I get to pay for my bandwidth TWICE.

Now the power lines and natural gas - that is treated as a utility and I can but my NG and electricity from a number of different suppliersthat are less expensive than the power company and the power company has to deliver it over common lines.

After 6 years of Obama doing stuff I don't like, he's finally done something I do like. I'm all in favor of net neutrality. Without it, we get stuck with a handful of mega-corps that will charge whatever the market will bear and keep all the small guys out. This kills innovation.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
11-10-2014, 08:55 PM
How many people here would stop visiting this site if you had to pay an additional $25-30 a month to connect to the RPF IP address?

That is what this is about. Corporations ability to degrade or downright censor for profit. That's what net neutrality stops.

-t

FindLiberty
11-10-2014, 09:36 PM
Here we go again, a digital version of the Communications Act of 1934.

Someone needs to invoke assistance from the spirit of Judge H. H. Green
to drive this new TCPIP poltergeist out into the daylight to kill it before
it infests the Internets.

Barrex
11-10-2014, 10:10 PM
Fuck you guys. Stop this. If it is enacted in US my moronic government will copy/paste it too.

I don't get it. Shouldn't ISPs be able to decide how much they want to charge for their services? Am I missing something?
http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/haha082109/haha-cap164.jpg
For example:
Governments force ISPs to sell internet packages with certain minimal speeds (even when people dont need them). This is raising prices artificially.

mczerone
11-10-2014, 10:57 PM
http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/10/obama-net-neutrality/

Reading Between The Lines:


President Obama has been a proponent of net neutrality for what seems like ages, which explains why he just did what he did. In a just-posted YouTube video (and Medium post) and he's just asked the FCC do what online activists have been hoping for --

Stacking the deck: by only acknowledging the existence of pro-NN activists, they pretend that anti-NN arguments are weak or don't exist.


Doing so would also mean the potentially hairy legal loophole that could give rise of prioritized service and online fast lanes wouldn't be an issue anymore, either.

Yeah, paying for better, more responsive service is just a "legal loophole." This frames the debate as one of "Our solution is already implemented, we just need a patch" instead of the more accurate "The natural order has been running better than anything the State has ever regulated, but we need to have the State take over for some reason"


As the president notes in that brief video address (which you can peek at after the jump) though, the FCC is an independent body and he can't make them do anything. It's on Chairman Tom Wheeler and his ilk to take a stand, though whether or not they will is still up in the air.

Legally, they aren't subject to his dictates. But it'd sure be unfortunate if something should happen to block their next appropriations, renew their appointments, or they come up for "random audits" next tax season.


But let's back up for a moment: why all the fuss about Title II? The juiciest, most pertinent bit lives in subsection 202, which states that common carriers (in this case, ISPs) wouldn't be able to "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Not the densest legalese we've ever seen, but President Obama's breaks things down a bit more in a blog post -- if things go his way, ISPs won't be able to block access to legal content, create so-called "slow lanes" or intentionally manipulate data speeds on a whim.

In other words: NN gives ISPs the reason, if not the explicit state mandate, to (1) Inspect packets, (2) define and ENFORCE "reasonable discrimination", (3) blacklist any traffic that has any possibility of being "illegal" (buh-bye bitcoin, torrents, 1/2 of youtube, free porn, and possibly even meetup.com), (4) create general blockages for ALL traffic, as long as it's policy and not just "on a whim", and (5) create an incentive or a new "private" internet that's priced out of the reach of 90% of Americans (compare commercial air to private jets).


Since sunlight is the best disinfectant, he's also pushing for greater transparency for things like peering agreements (like when Netflix cut connectivity deals with Comcast and more), which have the potential to get a little too fraught for regulators' liking. Long story short, ISPs would start to resemble those vaunted "dumb pipes" many of us have been clamoring for, though AT&T once argued that not even a Title II reclassification would be enough to keep providers from prioritizing some customers over others.

Says the head of the MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVARRRRR!!!11!

And notice the argument here: it's WHAT THE REGULATORS WANT, SO IT MUST BE GOOD.


While net neutrality advocates have a small victory to celebrate, we're starting to hear from service providers that are definitely less than pleased. Consider this tidbit from a new post on Verizon's Public Policy blog:

"Verizon supports the open Internet, and we continue to believe that the light-touch regulatory approach in place for the past two decades has been central to the Internet's success. Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation."

What's the opposite of an appeal to authority? They are saying here: Verizon's bad, Verizon's public statement in anti-NN, therefore NN is good.


This guy can have his "dumb pipes" in the market today. I'm not interested, and I'm not going to stop him from starting "NetNeutral ISP". But maybe some of us want "smart pipes" that respond to market signals, that can throttle less valuable information if favor of more valuable transmissions.

Net Neutrality is Net Neutering.

TheCount
11-10-2014, 11:14 PM
This guy can have his "dumb pipes" in the market today. I'm not interested, and I'm not going to stop him from starting "NetNeutral ISP". But maybe some of us want "smart pipes" that respond to market signals, that can throttle less valuable information if favor of more valuable transmissions

This is the most ridiculous possible permutation of anti-net neutrality arguments that I've ever heard. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

NorthCarolinaLiberty
11-11-2014, 01:25 AM
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious.[/URL]

But I can tell that you're trolling. Why, again, are you on this board? Oh that's right; you ran away last time I asked you.

Later on, Liberace.

The Free Hornet
11-11-2014, 02:10 AM
How many people here would stop visiting this site if you had to pay an additional $25-30 a month to connect to the RPF IP address?

That is what this is about. Corporations ability to degrade or downright censor for profit. That's what net neutrality stops.

-t



You mean net neutrality stops a problem that isn't happening and won't. Cancel your cable or dish. You might as well give your money to the DNC or Soros. My internet is $20/month. Youtube streams great. OTA HD DVR. This is in Cook County IL. I'm aware of one ISP that might be better which is a Google $300 one-time connect fee. NN/Obama will not be bringing you any deals. Like the ACA, this will be a trojan horse to prop up a dying industry and send more info and control to DC. Make me eat my words, I hope to be wrong.

TheCount
11-11-2014, 02:31 AM
You mean net neutrality stops a problem that isn't happening and won't.


Since this isn't happening, I'm sure that this graph is a coincidence, and the fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to stop slowing their traffic has nothing to do with it.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png

Antischism
11-11-2014, 03:08 AM
It seems some libertarians don't understand that government-sanctioned/protected monopolies are a bad thing. It's easy to just state "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" without really understanding what net neutrality is and why it's important if we don't want to stifle free speech, innovation, kill off start-ups/small businesses and eliminate jobs. There's nothing 'free market' about this industry. Don't conflate corporatism with free market capitalism.

The most important point to remember is that net neutrality is an equalizer; it's not government seizing control, setting prices and determining speeds. I don't even understand why anyone would be against this other than for being able to say GOVERNMENT BAD, OBAMA BAD while failing to understand that they're essentially supporting a corporatist monopoly with the means and will to act as a tyrannical government over the Internet. If you want actual competition in the field that more closely resembles free market capitalism, you'd be in favor of net neutrality.

mczerone
11-11-2014, 09:14 AM
This is the most ridiculous possible permutation of anti-net neutrality arguments that I've ever heard. I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or serious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

What was ridiculous about it?

You want a particular service from your ISP? sign up for it. Don't mandate it for everyone.

mczerone
11-11-2014, 09:23 AM
It seems some libertarians don't understand that government-sanctioned/protected monopolies are a bad thing. It's easy to just state "GOVERNMENT IS BAD" without really understanding what net neutrality is and why it's important if we don't want to stifle free speech, innovation, kill off start-ups/small businesses and eliminate jobs. There's nothing 'free market' about this industry. Don't conflate corporatism with free market capitalism.

The most important point to remember is that net neutrality is an equalizer; it's not government seizing control, setting prices and determining speeds. I don't even understand why anyone would be against this other than for being able to say GOVERNMENT BAD, OBAMA BAD while failing to understand that they're essentially supporting a corporatist monopoly with the means and will to act as a tyrannical government over the Internet.

The problem is, that's what it is about: more control, more price fixing, and speed fixing.

I understand that the big ISP players are greatly entrenched in the State system, but there's still, at this point, market regulation of the services they provide.

I'm scared of having an "equalizer": the internet is going to end up being the least common denominator of services. Middling speeds, access restrictions (Sure, you can watch Netflix, but don't try to access a VPN, TOR, Torrents, blockchain.info, etc), and packet sniffing. If it's acceptable to "the common user" then we'll all be "equalized" into doing nothing MORE than that.


If you want actual competition in the field that more closely resembles free market capitalism, you'd be in favor of net neutrality.

This reminds me of Mises's/Rothbard's intervention principle: the State intervenes, creates a market distortion, then is justified in intervening in ANOTHER way to "fix" the market. Rinse, Repeat.

If you're interested in passing legislation to make things behave "more like the free market" - the only thing you should favor is DEREGULATION.

mczerone
11-11-2014, 09:38 AM
Since this isn't happening, I'm sure that this graph is a coincidence, and the fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to stop slowing their traffic has nothing to do with it.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png

So, the market had a "problem" (in your eyes, not in mine), and the market fixed it.

If Comcast thought Netflix traffic was hurting their service, they should be able to discriminate. Do you know that Comcast is one of the largest Business ISPs? Would you rather some grandma be able to watch all 10 seasons of Dallas on a Tuesday afternoon without pre-buffering, or would you rather that your stock broker actually be able to process trades in a timely manner? Or your law firm be able to email that 10 Gig worth of video to the prosecutor exonerating you? Or your plumber be able to requisition that specialty U pipe that is needed tonight to fix that leak in your basement?

You have a particular subjective view of what "the internet" should be: dumb pipes that process everything at the same rate. That's cool. But it doesn't match what I think the internet should be: a market of communication where big players are charged more for higher service levels, determining what the most favorable type of traffic is for everyone.

Maybe Netflix is charged a fee for prioritized service, and they have to pass that to their customers - that'll just show their customers that throughput is still a scarce commodity, and they need to pay to ensure continued access and service that's evolving to be better.

Economics matters because for however magic the internet is, it is still scarce. And Obama or any "libertarian" NN advocate can't make that scarcity disappear by legislative fiat.

If you favor NN solutions to the scarcity of available throughput on the internet, you're a socialist. And you're paving the way for us all to have equally shitty, equally restricted, equally monitored internet service.*

(*Unless you're connected politically)

Occam's Banana
11-11-2014, 09:48 AM
Net Neutrality: What's the Libertarian Position?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-cURjSAxd0
TomWoodsTV (06 June 2014)

Tom talks with Berin Szoka of TechFreedom.org about the vexed question of "net neutrality."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-cURjSAxd0

acptulsa
11-11-2014, 10:10 AM
Since this isn't happening, I'm sure that this graph is a coincidence, and the fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to stop slowing their traffic has nothing to do with it.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png

Hm. A certain percentage of the population were having a problem getting one site from their provider until word got out and said provider became afraid that all those customers would leave them. Therefore, we all need to go to a completely different system wherein all of us could wind up with zero access to sites like the one we're all looking at right now, even though the entity we're supposed to turn all this over to is so slow to react that they couldn't even offer us their system before the free market solved the 'problem' all this is supposed to fix.

Uh, no. Thanks but no. Not no but hell no. Thanks for your input, but fuck no. No.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 12:26 PM
How many people here would stop visiting this site if you had to pay an additional $25-30 a month to connect to the RPF IP address?

That is what this is about. Corporations ability to degrade or downright censor for profit. That's what net neutrality stops.

-t

How many people would immediately switch internet providers if that ever happened?

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 12:34 PM
We're fighting the wrong battle here folks. The FCC is the problem. It's wireless regulations are based on outdated notions of "bandwidth" that ignore the fact that electrical signals can pass through each other without interfering. Please see this paper from MIT back in 1998. We could, by scrapping the FCC and understanding the new spread spectrum technology (what you WIFI works off of), move to an era where all sorts of mom and pop outfits become ISPs. In fact that's possible even with the outdated FCC.

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall98-papers/spectrum/whitepaper.html
Few topics have received as much attention in recent years as the growth of the communications industry, spurred along by the amazing growth of the internet. Everyone, from academics to engineers to policymakers, talks about the importance of an information infrastructure as we enter the new millenium. The advent of electronic commerce on the internet has transformed more abstract debates about the political and social implications of the internet to the forefront of discussions about the growth of the national and global economy. As businesspeople and some policymakers attempt to take advantage of the opportunities for economic growth presented by the internet, lawyers and policymakers are seeking solutions to the legal and policy problems posed by this amazing new medium.

Another related and much-talked about development in the communications industry has been the convergence of technologies in the industry. A decade or so ago, the airwaves were used for commercial broadcast and radio, the telephone network was used for interpersonal communications, and cable was used for cable TV service. Today, these distinctions mean little, and we have realized that it is the service—whether it is telephone service or internet access—that the end-user is interested in; the medium is just a way to get it there. This convergence has happened because of the development of technology, and again, law- and policymakers have struggled with creating a regulatory framework within with technology is allowed to develop and flourish.

As the growth of technology shows no sign of slowing down, the development of regulatory frameworks to contend with changing technology—and a world that is changing with it—is increasingly vital. In developing these frameworks, lawmakers must keep two things in mind. First, technology itself can and does act as a regulator, in the sense that it impacts the choices available to society. Second, the technical architectures that we choose—either explicitly or by developing regulatory frameworks that favor certain technologies—have values associated with them. In addition, lawmakers must remember that technology is an ever-changing variable, and should not hesitate to reexamine their earlier choices when changing technology renders their earlier assumptions obsolete.

This paper focuses on one example of a technological change that has made it imperative upon lawmakers to reexamine the existing regulatory scheme. This is the example of spectrum allocation. Strangely enough, the framework for allocating spectrum has changed in the past few years, with a move from licensing spectrum to auctioning off eight-year licenses. However, this change was motivated by economic considerations that were suggested several decades ago, and not by the changes in technology that the wireless transmission world has seen since the original licensing framework was adopted in the 1920s. Recently, wireless transmission technology has changed to an extent that compels us to push for more change—to question the very practice of granting exclusive licenses to broadcast at particular frequencies, and to push for open spectrum access.

It is interesting (especially given the interdisciplinary nature of this project group) to note that objections to the FCC’s practice of spectrum allocation have come from three different viewpoints. The first is technical. The system of allocating a particular frequency band to a single user is based on outdated technology. Early receivers and transmission schemes were such that we needed to be concerned about the possibility of interference. The development and implementation of spread spectrum and digital radio technology allow us to use receivers and transmission schemes such that interference is not a significant concern. By staying mired in a world of exclusive spectrum use, we are hurting the development of digital radio technology. As long as individual parties need a license to transmit, there is no incentive for innovators to design creative new ways for radio transmitters to coexist. Not having open spectrum access is keeping the radio industry from growing like the computer industry, where the open access communications scheme of the internet has spurred innovation that few (if any) developments in history can match.

The second viewpoint from which the FCC’s spectrum allocation process has been attacked is economic. An auction acts as barrier to entry to small firms and unproven technologies, which are often the sites of innovation. Further, auctions tend to "exaggerate actual net revenues raised because [there] is a trade-off between short-term revenue to the treasury and long-term reduced tax yields." Open spectrum access, on the other hand, is a free-market alternative to the government-sanctioned monopolies and oligopolies that auctions create.

The third, and perhaps most intriguing, viewpoint from which the FCC’s spectrum allocation policies can be attacked is Constitutional. By allocating spectrum licenses, the government is essentially picking who can talk and who cannot. While this decision is certainly viewpoint neutral, a government action that favors particular parties’ free speech rights at the expense of others has to be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. Traditionally, the prevention of interference between competing transmissions was this governmental interest. However, the advancements in spread spectrum and digital radio technology mean that this interest no longer exists, since spread spectrum allows multiple signals to be transmitted at the same frequency without the problem of interference.

Before delving into the interesting policy debates, however, a framework for understanding the problem needs to be developed. The next Part of this Paper introduces the technology of wireless communications and the advancements of spread spectrum and digital radio techniques. Part III then presents an overview of past spectrum regulation and spectrum use. Part IV will discuss current FCC policies and regulation. Part V will describe and criticize the FCC’s current policy of auctioning exclusive licenses for using the spectrum. Part VI will continue the challenge to the FCC’s auctioning policy by arguing that the First Amendment of the Constitution compels a system of open spectrum access rather than a system of exclusive licenses. Part VII will introduce some of the technical hurdles that a system of open spectrum access faces, and makes some recommendations on implementing such a system. Finally, Part VIII reiterates the importance of reevaluating the current scheme of spectrum allocation in light of changing technology, and suggests that the FCC take affirmative steps to ensure that open spectrum access allows a "spectrum commons" to develop.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 12:57 PM
I tried to find more information on Google about this....and ran across my own post about this from 2010. :o

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?256904-Why-we-may-not-need-the-the-FCC-or-net-neutrality

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 01:16 PM
It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.


Since this isn't happening, I'm sure that this graph is a coincidence, and the fact that Netflix agreed to pay Comcast to stop slowing their traffic has nothing to do with it.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/isp-speed.png

That was a real problem. And the case could be made that Comcast was involved in fraud during that time frame, as they explicitly blamed Netflix for the problems.

Unfortunately, Comcast and Netflix are both competitors and partners. Comcast decided to engage in business "warfare". Netflix could have gone public, and explicitly told their customers that Comcast does not work well with Netflix, and recommended that customers switch to a different ISP. There's a competitive market solution.

Zippyjuan
11-11-2014, 01:16 PM
It is obvious that the internet is not working. What is needed is for government to fix it.


Actually the way I read it is that it intends to keep the internet as it is- allowing equal access to all.

acptulsa
11-11-2014, 01:23 PM
Oh, well. Z2.0 has promised us that if we like our interwebz we can keep it.

I'm sure we'll all sleep better tonight...

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 01:24 PM
Don’t be fooled: Net neutrality is all about cronyism (http://rare.us/story/dont-be-fooled-net-neutrality-is-all-about-cronyism/)
By Casey Given - November 11, 2014


The Internet is pretty awesome. Thirty years ago, the idea that a decentralized network of millions of users and dozens of service providers could actually work in a functional way would seem crazy. Yet, the World Wide Web has triumphed as ultimate proof that markets work with minimal government regulation. From the work of millions of self-interested actors has emerged an awning electronic dimension where people can interact, learn, play, shop, and watch, at a minimal cost.

Apparently, not for the federal government. On Monday, President Barack Obama urged the Federal Communications Commission to saddle Internet service providers (ISPs) with many of the same burdensome regulations that telephone companies have to comply with. Why would the president seek to regulate a network that seems to be working efficiently without the government? The answer, unsurprisingly, is cronyism.

For years, Internet giants like Facebook, Google, and Netflix have been pushing for network neutrality to avoid paying for the traffic their users hog from ISPs. As it currently stands, Netflix and YouTube account for half of all peak-hour download traffic in the United States, often leading to slow buffering speeds during prime hours. As a result, some ISPs have sought to provide better service to their customers by suggesting that the Netflix and YouTubes of the world pay slightly more for their users to stream videos faster — a pretty clear-cut win for customers if ever there was one.
...
The FCC would do best for Internet users by leaving it alone, allowing ISPs to innovate and evolve to customers demands instead of being bound to business plans designed by government bureaucrats.
...
More:
http://rare.us/story/dont-be-fooled-net-neutrality-is-all-about-cronyism/

Zippyjuan
11-11-2014, 01:35 PM
As a result, some ISPs have sought to provide better service to their customers by suggesting that the Netflix and YouTubes of the world pay slightly more for their users to stream videos faster — a pretty clear-cut win for customers if ever there was one.

Remember who would pay for those higher rates- internet users.

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 01:36 PM
Actually the way I read it is that it intends to keep the internet as it is- allowing equal access to all.

Why keep the internet as it is when we can deregulate spectrum, introduce real competition, and make it better?

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=864028

Open Spectrum! Open Spectrum! Open Spectrum!

Occam's Banana
11-11-2014, 01:49 PM
As a result, some ISPs have sought to provide better service to their customers by suggesting that the Netflix and YouTubes of the world pay slightly more for their users to stream videos faster — a pretty clear-cut win for customers if ever there was one.Remember who would pay for those higher rates- internet users.

Users paying for stuff they use?
*gasp* Quelle horreur! :eek:

Madison320
11-11-2014, 02:35 PM
I don't really understand how ISPs work. Here's my guess (I'm a programmer, so I know a little, but not that much.) My guess is that the ISP provides a connection from your computer to their servers and then they tap into the main internet thru high speed lines. I'm also guessing they have to rent bandwidth from the govt, with no regard to content, only how much bandwidth the ISP is using. If this is correct I don't see why the govt should regulate the ISPs.

Does anyone know if my guess is accurate?

Madison320
11-11-2014, 02:44 PM
You mean net neutrality stops a problem that isn't happening and won't. Cancel your cable or dish. You might as well give your money to the DNC or Soros. My internet is $20/month. Youtube streams great. OTA HD DVR. This is in Cook County IL. I'm aware of one ISP that might be better which is a Google $300 one-time connect fee. NN/Obama will not be bringing you any deals. Like the ACA, this will be a trojan horse to prop up a dying industry and send more info and control to DC. Make me eat my words, I hope to be wrong.

My gut instinct is that net neutrality will force ISPs to switch from charging various rates to charging one high rate. If ISPs have to charge the same rate there's no incentive for customers to use less bandwidth.

Here's an article on Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/net-neutrality/

tangent4ronpaul
11-11-2014, 03:14 PM
How many people would immediately switch internet providers if that ever happened?

Due to government granted monopolies, the alternative ISP is 2 cans and a ball of string.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
11-11-2014, 03:33 PM
Don’t be fooled: Net neutrality is all about cronyism (http://rare.us/story/dont-be-fooled-net-neutrality-is-all-about-cronyism/)
By Casey Given - November 11, 2014

Two words: DARK FIBER!

Bandwidth is like diamonds. Create artificial scarcity so you can charge out the nose for it.

Canada regulates price so bandwidth is cheap for their citizens. None of their ISP's are going out of business.

A lot of countries in the world have better bandwidth than is available to Americans. Like 10 times the bandwidth. There is no incentive for US companies to do this, yet they could. Actually, there is one US company that is providing these speeds in this country and what do they charge? NOTHING! That company is Google.

-t

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 03:55 PM
Two words: DARK FIBER!

Bandwidth is like diamonds. Create artificial scarcity so you can charge out the nose for it.

Canada regulates price so bandwidth is cheap for their citizens. None of their ISP's are going out of business.

A lot of countries in the world have better bandwidth than is available to Americans. Like 10 times the bandwidth. There is no incentive for US companies to do this, yet they could. Actually, there is one US company that is providing these speeds in this country and what do they charge? NOTHING! That company is Google.

-t

Yeah, bandwidth limitations may be an excuse.

I'm not sure who owns, invests in, and maintains the "Internet", and thus creates the bandwidth. How much of that is telephone companies? I suspect it is not just ISPs, although they will have have some portion, especially the portion that leads directly to your home.

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 03:56 PM
Remember who would pay for those higher rates- internet users.

An analogy over who pays is somewhat like the difference between a regular restaurant and an all you can eat buffet. Do we all want or need "all you can eat"?

TheCount
11-11-2014, 04:03 PM
You want a particular service from your ISP? sign up for it. Don't mandate it for everyone.

This is the ridiculous part. Streaming video is not the service that the ISP provides. That is the service that Netflix provides. The ISP provides the service of moving your data along its wires. If they decide not to move your data, or to move your data in a different way or at a different speed without changing your contract or notifying you in any way, then that is borderline fraud.

TheCount
11-11-2014, 04:11 PM
How many people would immediately switch internet providers if that ever happened?

How many people have the choice of no more than two internet providers, because the providers have made private agreements not to compete with each other?

How many people have the choice of an internet provider whose parent company does not also own some flavor of media broadcast company? Time Warner owns CNN. Comcast owns NBC. Do you want either of those companies deciding which types of media/news you are allowed to consume?


If any meaningful competition existed in this market, this would not be an issue. That is not the case.

TheCount
11-11-2014, 04:17 PM
An analogy over who pays is somewhat like the difference between a regular restaurant and an all you can eat buffet. Do we all want or need "all you can eat"?

When I want to eat more at a restaurant, I have to pay for it. The chicken farmer does not pay the restaurant to feed me more chicken.

Liberty Rebellion
11-11-2014, 04:28 PM
Bandwidth is scarce and expensive. I work for one of the largest ISPs in the country and our national backbone spans from the west coast to the east coast and 90% of our connectivity from one backbone in one state to another is leased from mostly Level 3 and CenturyLink. We would lay our own fiber if it weren't so prohibitively expensive. This doesn't even include the fiber we lease in our core in each market. We are looking to do more dark fiber solutions and we are building out fiber rings at certain locations, but by and large we'll be leasing our fiber.

My understanding is that most of the fiber optic networks in this country were subsidized by .gov and the Tier 1 ISP's got a huge advantage in that regard.

We have upgrades upcoming on our backbone that will allow each card in our chassis to go from 40 Gigs per slot (4x10Ge) to 400 per slot (40x10GE or 4x100GE)

As far as the issues with Cogent, Verizon, and some other players we've been at the mercy of their shenanigans as well. We have had customers complaining about high-latency and packet loss upstream from our network and there's not much we can do since some of the traffic is destined for networks that are owned by the bad players (it appears these issues are resolved at this time, but we had tickets that went on for months while the upstream entities fought over who was paying for what). On traffic that is transiting the networks of these bad players we can implement certain things in BGP to try and route around them and we continue to add settlement free peers where we just go directly from our network to the peers, or through the peer to a destination network which eliminates the Verizons, Comcast, Level3's and Centurlinks as being middle men on dedicated internet access. We were saving more and more money as we turned up more and more peers until Netflix signed that deal with Level3 and traffic from Netflix started kicking up a lot.

There were talks with netflix where they would put their servers on our network in every market so we didn't even have to go out to the Internet, but that deal fell through for reasons I'm not privy to. Despite the increased costs that come with the ingress traffic from Level 3 for Netflix traffic, we don't rate-limit or degrade Netflix traffic in any way and in fact are constantly rated as the best or close to the best rated ISP for Netflix by Netflix

bunklocoempire
11-11-2014, 04:54 PM
And this protects my individual inalienable rights how?

smokemonsc
11-11-2014, 05:41 PM
How many people have the choice of no more than two internet providers, because the providers have made private agreements not to compete with each other?


None - they (ISPs) make monopoly guaranteed agreements with local governments banning and regulating competition. It is illegal in most cities to try to build your own ISP, let alone lay down new infrastructure to support said ISPs. This is what happens when government labels an industry as an "utility". The lack of competition is the designed result for companies like Time Warner and Comcast.

This BS called Net Neutrality is just more regulation that will result in less competition and higher prices for everyone.

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 06:10 PM
Bandwidth is scarce and expensive. I work for one of the largest ISPs in the country and our national backbone spans from the west coast to the east coast and 90% of our connectivity from one backbone in one state to another is leased from mostly Level 3 and CenturyLink. We would lay our own fiber if it weren't so prohibitively expensive. This doesn't even include the fiber we lease in our core in each market. We are looking to do more dark fiber solutions and we are building out fiber rings at certain locations, but by and large we'll be leasing our fiber.

My understanding is that most of the fiber optic networks in this country were subsidized by .gov and the Tier 1 ISP's got a huge advantage in that regard.

We have upgrades upcoming on our backbone that will allow each card in our chassis to go from 40 Gigs per slot (4x10Ge) to 400 per slot (40x10GE or 4x100GE)

As far as the issues with Cogent, Verizon, and some other players we've been at the mercy of their shenanigans as well. We have had customers complaining about high-latency and packet loss upstream from our network and there's not much we can do since some of the traffic is destined for networks that are owned by the bad players (it appears these issues are resolved at this time, but we had tickets that went on for months while the upstream entities fought over who was paying for what). On traffic that is transiting the networks of these bad players we can implement certain things in BGP to try and route around them and we continue to add settlement free peers where we just go directly from our network to the peers, or through the peer to a destination network which eliminates the Verizons, Comcast, Level3's and Centurlinks as being middle men on dedicated internet access. We were saving more and more money as we turned up more and more peers until Netflix signed that deal with Level3 and traffic from Netflix started kicking up a lot.

Wow. That Al Gore invented quite a complex information super-highway, didn't he? ;)

Needless to say it's a bit more complex than just Netflix and your particular ISP. Companies sure like to claim it's not their fault. Problem is, no one does a full end to end investigation. (At least not the customer service rep in the Philippines that tells you to reboot.)


There were talks with netflix where they would put their servers on our network in every market so we didn't even have to go out to the Internet, but that deal fell through for reasons I'm not privy to. Despite the increased costs that come with the ingress traffic from Level 3 for Netflix traffic, we don't rate-limit or degrade Netflix traffic in any way and in fact are constantly rated as the best or close to the best rated ISP for Netflix by Netflix

Hmmm. Never heard about Netflix rating ISPs. Seems like a good idea.

Brian4Liberty
11-11-2014, 06:12 PM
And this protects my individual inalienable rights how?

They will give you free stuff and grace you with rights! Any more questions like that and it's off to the Gulag for you, comrade.

Liberty Rebellion
11-11-2014, 08:11 PM
Wow. That Al Gore invented quite a complex information super-highway, didn't he? ;)

Needless to say it's a bit more complex than just Netflix and your particular ISP. Companies sure likes to claim it's not their fault. Problem is, no one does a full end to end investigation. (At least not the customer service rep in the Philippines that tells you to reboot.)



I'm not saying it's not just my ISP and Netflix. The issue with congestion amongst Tier 1 ISP's and Netflix is they all used to send each other traffic in settlement free peering arrangements where the traffic is balanced. Once Netflix signed with Level 3 (or whatever Level 1 ISP it is) then they started sending more data and basically turning those SFP agreements on their head. Any ISP that charges another for Internet access charges a lot of money and I'm guessing what happened is the company hosting Netflix said payup for this bandwidth.

What I don't get is why isn't Netflix peering with other ISP in SFP arrangements. We have SFP with youtube, google, yahoo, facebook, etc etc. Netflix peering with Level 3 had to offer them something greater than doing those type of arrangements or they would be doing SFP or building a CDN within the networks of all the different ISPs.

I agree the lack of transparency for outages is dumb. I actually started an account on a techforum to help people out because I found they had a lot of legit issues. Working at the National Operations Center I had/have access to everything. I asked my boss if I could create an account and post in there to help and he said go ahead even though it was a grey area.

After I helped in some outage situations, I posted the reason for the outage and got in trouble. I think it's dumb most ISP's keep this info bottled up and I'd like to see more transparency on that end. There would be a lot of service credits issued to customers and I suspect that's the reason they don't allow RFO's to be made public





Hmmm. Never heard about Netflix rating ISPs. Seems like a good idea.

http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/usa

The Free Hornet
11-11-2014, 09:14 PM
Due to government granted monopolies, the alternative ISP is 2 cans and a ball of string.

-t

You're in a panic because you want to panic. Supporting NN is asking the same government that did the "government granted monopolies" to fix the situation.

There ought to be more support for community sharing of internet (e.g., as a first amendment right - public/utility rights of way and EM spectrum should not be sold with the intent of muzzling your communication).

Here is one such group.

http://www.sfgate.com/search/?action...+User+Group%22

Rather than fight the copyright cartels and panic police (oh nos hackers and naughty bits), you're giving in to paranoia.

Why doesn't the NN crowd call to end the NSA? Or guarantee true freedom to communicate through spectrum that ought to be plentiful? You expect them to regulate the exact degree of artificial scarcity so you can get your MSM channels and Netflix without getting raped on the price??? Good luck. I likely need about $10 worth of broadband per month. More doesn't do much for me. To be fair, I have my 'smart' phone too so if the internet is out, that can do most of what I need.

How much longer will people fall for TriplePlay arrangements whereby they pay three times for the same service? If people have family that demand cable or landline satisfaction (of course, there are IP solutions for that), then I have some sympathy. Everybody else here should know better. Stop funding the entities that defeated Ron Paul.

Mr Tansill
11-11-2014, 11:16 PM
I guess I'm one of those libertarians that comes down on the opposite side of the fence from the majority of people posting on this site - which is expected with the libertarian crowd, since we do tend towards more issue-based positions rather than just following a party line. That said, I'm not really comprehending why so many here are against net neutrality. Just asserting that gov't = bad is insufficient in my view, and unconvincing. What is the reason that control of the internet should be given to private gatekeepers or corporations?

ISPs utilize phone lines and other infrastructure that was put into place well before the internet existed, and they require that infrastructure to operate their businesses. In that light, they seem far more like a service provider who provides a service (data) to a user. Sort of like a business called UPS who drive their delivery trucks along public (government owned) roads to bring packages and/or mail to your house. Who here would allow UPS or FEDEX to charge them a fee to deliver mail which was already paid for at the time it was sent?

So my basic argument for net neutrality is that because the ISPs have to use government (public) owned infrastructure to deliver their service, they are subject to government regulation - regulation by the people. Some claim that a portion of that infrastructure is private...cool...I'll just chop down the telephone pole using the public easement on my property, or better yet, charge a nominal fee for every bit, byte, and electron that surfs by my house since last time I checked, the ISPs in my neighborhood didn't enter into a contractual agreement with me gaining permission to use my property to conduct their business.


My gut instinct is that net neutrality will force ISPs to switch from charging various rates to charging one high rate. If ISPs have to charge the same rate there's no incentive for customers to use less bandwidth.

Here's an article on Lew Rockwell:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/robert-wenzel/net-neutrality/

My argument against the opponents of net neutrality is that the ISPs already charge based on data speed (and therefore data volume)!!! Here's a current reference: http://www.comcast.com/xfinity-internet-offers. If you want to watch streaming HBO or Netflix, well, ComCast has a solution for you...it costs $90 per month, and at 105 MBs, you should be able to have a stutter-free viewing experience. If all you care about is checking email a couple of times a day, ComCast offers a package for that as well...it costs $20 per month and will allow you unfettered use of any chat room you could ever want to visit on your Netscape 4.1 browser. Bottom line here is that the cable companies already charge based on the "speed costs more" business model. So Madison320, what we have currently is net neutrality, yet the ISPs currently charge various rates, so I'm not really grasping the implication in your statement above.

What is really going on IMO, is that ISPs are seeking more profit and see an easy, easy, easy way to get at it - just horn in on the content that is being provided at the other end of the spigot. Just a couple lines of code and you can increase your profit margin enormously. The bottom line is that the internet has become more profitable than anyone had ever imagined, and the uses for it have grown far beyond what anyone had envisioned. The ISPs, long having selected a pricing model, are now at a point where they cannot realistically change that structure drastically from what it is. They find this upsetting and are seeking new ways to increase their bottom line. Net effect on the consumer: we would pay more for faster internet, or more or the same for equal or slower internet.

If ComCast, Verizon, et al are upset that Netflix is taking up too much of their bandwidth, then they can figure out how much the average Netflix viewer consumes in a month and price an option to support that use UNDER CURRENT LAWS!!!!! In fact, upon further review, they already advertise it as being sufficient for streaming HD movies...what is the basis for this debate again???

jmdrake
11-11-2014, 11:17 PM
How many people have the choice of no more than two internet providers, because the providers have made private agreements not to compete with each other?

How many people have the choice of an internet provider whose parent company does not also own some flavor of media broadcast company? Time Warner owns CNN. Comcast owns NBC. Do you want either of those companies deciding which types of media/news you are allowed to consume?


If any meaningful competition existed in this market, this would not be an issue. That is not the case.

If the FCC deregulated more of the spectrum there would be ample competition.

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=864028

tangent4ronpaul
11-11-2014, 11:35 PM
I'm not saying it's not just my ISP and Netflix. The issue with congestion amongst Tier 1 ISP's and Netflix is they all used to send each other traffic in settlement free peering arrangements where the traffic is balanced. Once Netflix signed with Level 3 (or whatever Level 1 ISP it is) then they started sending more data and basically turning those SFP agreements on their head. Any ISP that charges another for Internet access charges a lot of money and I'm guessing what happened is the company hosting Netflix said payup for this bandwidth.

What I don't get is why isn't Netflix peering with other ISP in SFP arrangements. We have SFP with youtube, google, yahoo, facebook, etc etc. Netflix peering with Level 3 had to offer them something greater than doing those type of arrangements or they would be doing SFP or building a CDN within the networks of all the different ISPs.

I agree the lack of transparency for outages is dumb. I actually started an account on a techforum to help people out because I found they had a lot of legit issues. Working at the National Operations Center I had/have access to everything. I asked my boss if I could create an account and post in there to help and he said go ahead even though it was a grey area.

After I helped in some outage situations, I posted the reason for the outage and got in trouble. I think it's dumb most ISP's keep this info bottled up and I'd like to see more transparency on that end. There would be a lot of service credits issued to customers and I suspect that's the reason they don't allow RFO's to be made public






http://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/usa

40% of internet traffic is porn. Netflix does not serve up porn.

Bandwidth used to be expensive, before the taxpayer underwrote buying tons of dark fiber. Unused bandwidth.

Some scummy mom and pop ISP's used to massively under buy bandwidth and over sell their capacity. I thought they went away with the "we will assimilate you" mega ISP take over. Guess there are still scummy players in the game. What ISP did you say you worked for again?

-t

Madison320
11-14-2014, 12:39 PM
Bandwidth is scarce and expensive. I work for one of the largest ISPs in the country and our national backbone spans from the west coast to the east coast and 90% of our connectivity from one backbone in one state to another is leased from mostly Level 3 and CenturyLink. We would lay our own fiber if it weren't so prohibitively expensive. This doesn't even include the fiber we lease in our core in each market. We are looking to do more dark fiber solutions and we are building out fiber rings at certain locations, but by and large we'll be leasing our fiber.


Who does your ISP have to pay for bandwidth? Is it the govt? I always assumed the govt owned the main "trunk" of the internet?

Madison320
11-14-2014, 01:06 PM
ISPs utilize phone lines and other infrastructure that was put into place well before the internet existed, and they require that infrastructure to operate their businesses. In that light, they seem far more like a service provider who provides a service (data) to a user. Sort of like a business called UPS who drive their delivery trucks along public (government owned) roads to bring packages and/or mail to your house. Who here would allow UPS or FEDEX to charge them a fee to deliver mail which was already paid for at the time it was sent?

So my basic argument for net neutrality is that because the ISPs have to use government (public) owned infrastructure to deliver their service, they are subject to government regulation - regulation by the people. Some claim that a portion of that infrastructure is private...cool...I'll just chop down the telephone pole using the public easement on my property, or better yet, charge a nominal fee for every bit, byte, and electron that surfs by my house since last time I checked, the ISPs in my neighborhood didn't enter into a contractual agreement with me gaining permission to use my property to conduct their business.


Suppose you had a highway built by the govt that went from LA to NY. The only traffic allowed on that highway were car rental companies licensed by the government. So if you want to drive on that highway you need to rent from a licensed company. The car rental companies have to pay rent to the govt based on the size of the cars and the amount of miles they travel on this highway. So the rental companies charge their customers more for renting a truck than a economy car, and more for someone going all the way from LA to NY, because the car rental companies cost is also higher. Or the car rental company might not even rent trucks because it's not a high enough profit margin. It seems to me that net neutrality is like forcing the car rental companies to charge the same amount for all customers. In this example I don't think the govt should have any say in how the car rental company runs it's business. The governments only concern should be between the car rental company and itself. The govt should try to stay neutral, and charge for its service depending on cost. The govt should not be telling the car rental companies who they can rent to or how much they should charge or that they need to be renting to more minorities, or more electric cars, etc. It seems to me you are saying that because the govt owns and controls part of the operation, that the govt should micromanage the whole process. I think even though the ISPs are using govt property you should try keep the regulation to a minimum. Maybe my example is flawed, so I may be totally wrong so keep that in mind. :)

Lord Xar
11-14-2014, 10:28 PM
I am having a discussion with someone and they insist that the FCC will NOT be granted any new controls/power over the internet. So, I am curious how the FCC is getting more control (as I am hearing from those in opposition of net neutrality) -- I assume "some control" must be had to ensure, and enforce net neutrality -- but anything concrete or nuanced that i am missing?

56ktarget
11-15-2014, 03:52 AM
LOL this is too funny to watch as Paulites contradict themselves and argue against net freedom

cindy25
11-15-2014, 05:40 AM
if there is only one ISP or one cable provider it's a utility

Lucille
11-15-2014, 09:00 AM
I am having a discussion with someone and they insist that the FCC will NOT be granted any new controls/power over the internet. So, I am curious how the FCC is getting more control (as I am hearing from those in opposition of net neutrality) -- I assume "some control" must be had to ensure, and enforce net neutrality -- but anything concrete or nuanced that i am missing?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462807-quot-If-You-Like-Your-Internet-quot-Obama-Calls-For-Regulation-To-Keep-quot-Internet-Open-quot


LOL this is too funny to watch as Paulites contradict themselves and argue against net freedom

What's even funnier is, at this point in the Obama regime, you think "net neutrality" has anything to do with freedom.

Mr Tansill
11-15-2014, 01:43 PM
Suppose you had a highway built by the govt that went from LA to NY. The only traffic allowed on that highway were car rental companies licensed by the government. So if you want to drive on that highway you need to rent from a licensed company. The car rental companies have to pay rent to the govt based on the size of the cars and the amount of miles they travel on this highway. So the rental companies charge their customers more for renting a truck than a economy car, and more for someone going all the way from LA to NY, because the car rental companies cost is also higher. Or the car rental company might not even rent trucks because it's not a high enough profit margin. It seems to me that net neutrality is like forcing the car rental companies to charge the same amount for all customers. In this example I don't think the govt should have any say in how the car rental company runs it's business. The governments only concern should be between the car rental company and itself. The govt should try to stay neutral, and charge for its service depending on cost. The govt should not be telling the car rental companies who they can rent to or how much they should charge or that they need to be renting to more minorities, or more electric cars, etc. It seems to me you are saying that because the govt owns and controls part of the operation, that the govt should micromanage the whole process. I think even though the ISPs are using govt property you should try keep the regulation to a minimum. Maybe my example is flawed, so I may be totally wrong so keep that in mind. :)

Hey Madison, thanks for the response. I think we're in agreement honestly (I bolded the parts of your response that I think are the crux of your point). In your example I agree - the government shouldn't have the ability to dictate how a car company prices models of its cars, nor should the government be allowed to tell the companies who they must provide service to, etc. If Enterprise or Dollar decide that they want to offer different levels of service (i.e. compact cars, trucks, SUVs, etc.) they should be allowed to price them according to whatever model they choose. Likewise, ISPs should be allowed to offer different levels of service - as they currently do through tiered pricing models and increased bandwidth to those who are willing to pay for it (reference ComCast's current pricing page: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html). The only thing that net neutrality does is disallow the ISP from throttling your 50MBS connection to 28.8Kbps if you're not utilizing 'preferred content' - i.e. content that is provided by companies that have business relationships with ISPs.

I agree that regulation should be at a minimum, and that the government shouldn't micromanage the whole process. In the simplest of terms, my understanding of net neutrality is simply that ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate between different types of traffic on the internet once the price of admission has been paid. Analogously, this would be akin to preventing car rental companies, as in your example, from discriminating against certain races of people.

Lucille
11-15-2014, 01:57 PM
Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/11/net-neutrality-is-not-neutrality-it-is-actually-the-opposite-its-corporate-welfare-for-netflix-and-google.html

also here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462807-quot-If-You-Like-Your-Internet-quot-Obama-Calls-For-Regulation-To-Keep-quot-Internet-Open-quot&p=5702015&viewfull=1#post5702015

(Mods, feel free to merge my thread with this one if you want to.)

Lucille
11-15-2014, 01:58 PM
Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/11/net-neutrality-is-not-neutrality-it-is-actually-the-opposite-its-corporate-welfare-for-netflix-and-google.html

also here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?462807-quot-If-You-Like-Your-Internet-quot-Obama-Calls-For-Regulation-To-Keep-quot-Internet-Open-quot&p=5702015&viewfull=1#post5702015

(Mods, feel free to merge the thread I started in Individual Rights & Liberties to this one if you want to.)

spudea
11-21-2017, 08:44 PM
I found this old thread with some good responses. Its a good read through.